Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKAR in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Swann Committee (Report)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in the light of the Swann Committee Report, he will review the scale of support for post-graduate training leading primarily to academic research, and consider alternative kinds of post-graduate awards aimed at widening the scientific and technological outlook, those involving closer liaison between universities and industry in the form of joint appointments, those of an inter-disciplinary nature relevant to industry, and those primarily for potential school teachers, involving scope for research.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): Yes, Sir. Even before the Swann Committee had produced its valuable Report, the Science Research Council had already introduced its industrial studentships and science and industry awards. The Council's policy on post-graduate training, with particular reference to closer collaboration between universities and industry, is now being reviewed by a Working Party under Lord Halsbury. Meawhile I am asking all the research councils for their views on the Swann Report.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend's Answer mean that we really do have an assurance that there will be sustained progress chasing on this valuable Report and that it will not be relegated to some musty file?

Mr. Crosland: I can give that assurance absolutely. This is a subject to which a number of recent Reports have drawn attention—the Arthur Report, the Bosworth

Report, as well as the Swann Report, and I can give an absolute assurance that some parts of the Report have already been anticipated by the Science Research Council and that there will be very consistent progress chasing indeed.

Science Research (Finance)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in the light of the first annual report of the Science Research Council, he will introduce a five-year rolling plan for science research finance, with the assurance of money to cover the first three years, after an annual declaration of intent.

Mr. Crosland: In changing economic circumstances there can never be an absolute assurance of funds for a long period ahead, but I hope that, with the help of the Council for Scientific Policy, it may soon be possible to reach decisions on allocations for a three year period.

Mr. Dalyell: Would the Secretary of State agree that industry without research is rather like a cut flower without its roots, and that this constitutes a strong argument for research going to areas like Livingston New Town, where there is a 9·2 per cent. unemployment rate?

Mr. Crosland: I am not myself a horticulturist and I would not like to comment on the particular point about Livingston; but I think I agree with what is implied, in terms of general policy, by my hon. Friend's Question.

Sir E. Boyle: Without going too far into metaphor, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that an approach on the lines of this question would command pretty general assent in the House? Is it not absurd to pretend to be able to forecast demand for knitwear in 1970 while not having a rolling plan of this kind for scientific research expenditure?

Mr. Crosland: Knitwear must be a question for one of my right hon. Friends, but I am not sure which one. As to the rolling plan, as I said in my original Answer, I hope we shall be able to get some form of three year look at any rate. I must say, as the right hon. Gentleman referred to the National Plan, this will be much better than anything done by the Tory Government.

Non-English-Speaking Immigrants (Circular)

Mr. Hattersley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities with appreciable numbers of non-English speaking immigrants within their boundaries have refused to implement the recommendation of Circular 7/65.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): Detailed information is not available, but reports suggest that the great majority of local education authorities are acting upon the recommendations of the circular.

Mr. Hattersley: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham, one of the cities not implementing the circular, individual headmasters are choosing to exclude non-English-speaking children unilaterally? How long is this potentially dangerous situation going to continue?

Mr. Howell: As my hon. Friend would expect, I am well aware of what is happening in Birmingham. I agree with him about the difficulties and sympathise very much with the headmasters concerned. I would only add that in my view authorities which pursue policies which might inevitably lead to segregated schools bear a very heavy responsibility indeed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Minister discourage local education authorities from applying this circular at the level of primary schools, since dispersal of that age group is likely to lead to consequences of a disadvantageous nature?

Mr. Howell: In the case of primary schools, dispersal usually means a policy which is effected at the moment of entry into the school. It rather suggests to parents that they take their children to school A rather than school B. It does not usually mean transportation. I think it is very important to get that right. But even in primary schools there is still good evidence to show that to have more than 30 per cent. of immigrants in such schools has educational difficulties which we want to avoid.

Secondary Education

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to bring forward legislation to remove from local education authorities their powers to determine the pattern of secondary education in their areas.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on 3rd November.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If this idea is not in the Government's mind, why was it in the mouth of the Minister of State at Croydon on 20th October? Does this mean that it is yet another example of government by threat and intimidation?

Mr. Crosland: What it means is that this was another example of the rather sensational methods of reporting of that particular newspaper.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware of the feelings of many parents in areas such as Croydon, where the local council is refusing to go comprehensive? Will he bear this point in mind in his consideration of this problem?

Mr. Crosland: There has been no change of any kind in Government policy on this. I have said consistently that the great majority of authorities are cooperating wholeheartedly with the Government's policy. There is a tiny minority of authorities which is not, and I believe that this tiny minority of authorities will find themselves subject to the general force of public opinion. Supposing I were wrong, and supposing any of this considerable number of authorities were to reject what is now the clear national will on this subject, any Government would reserve the right to legislate. However, I regard this question as entirely hypothetical, in view of the way the comprehensive reorganisation policy is going over the country as a whole.

Mr. Jennings: In this context, how does the right hon. Gentleman regard his Circulars 10/65 and 10/66? Does he regard them as being permissive or as directives? What does he intend to do


with local education authorities which continue to support schemes for secondary reorganisation of which he would not finally approve?

Mr. Crosland: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, the hon. Member, who has great experience of these matters, will know that the language of Circulars 10/65 and 10/66 was identical with the language which has been used in circulars over many years, even decades, past. In answer to the second part of the supplemenetary question, if an authority submits a scheme which does not appear to carry out the intentions of the circular, I shall say that that scheme is not acceptable under the terms of the circular.

Sir E. Boyle: Did not the Minister of State say in his speech at Croydon that the Government's policy is a national policy and that the L.E.A.s are only their agents? Is not that statement clearly out of accord with both the letter and the spirit of the 1944 Act which, after all, assigned specific rights, duties and powers to local authorities, irrespective of political majorities in the House of Commons?

Mr. Crosland: Those remarks, put like that, are rather curious coming from the representative of a Government who frequently in practice prevented local authorities from doing what they wanted in this matter. I read the text of my hon. Friend's speech with great care after the highly misleading headline which appeared. There was nothing in the speech which would go counter to the tradition of co-operation between central and local Government which has been built up in this country for many years.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Secretary of State withdraw his rather absurd remark about the national will? This is surely a matter for local option. If it be the desire of the Government, as it should be, to help comprehensive schools, will he look into the hold-up of a new comprehensive school in Stafford—which meets the local general will—because he is holding things up in the most ludicrous fashion?

Mr. Crosland: I am delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about Stafford, and I hope that he will seek to convert his right hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I used the phrase "national will" because on this subject, taking either election results or the results of public opinion polls, there is a clear national majority against segregation at 11-plus.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will issue a circular to discourage local education authorities from modifying or changing the method of the 11-plus, while still retaining this method of secondary selection, in view of Circular 10/65.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some local education authorities, mainly Tory-controlled ones, are changing or modifying the 11-plus procedure but still retaining this form of selection at 11? Will he warn these local education authorities that this sort of trick will not work?

Mr. Crosland: I am not personally too much concerned with what exact procedures are used for 11-plus selection during the interim period while it still survives. What I am much more concerned with is eliminating it as soon as possible.

Mr. Joseph Kevin McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to announce his decision on the scheme for comprehensive education submitted by the City and County of Kingston-upon-Hull Education Committee.

Mr. Crosland: At the end of this month.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in examination and approval or otherwise of the scheme for secondary reorganisation submitted by the Redbridge Borough Council.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): My right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a decision on the Redbridge authority's proposals. I am meeting representatives of the authority on the matter on 6th December.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer, but is he aware of the growing anxiety in the borough, particularly among parents who are directly worried about this problem? Could he do something to expedite the procedure?

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend will take account of all expressions of opinion from the locality, and at the meeting which I propose to have on 6th December with representatives of the authority I shall discuss all aspects of this subject.

Mr. Iremonger: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the enforcement of his compulsory "comprehensivisation" of secondary education in Ilford is ruining a perfectly workable system at great expense and no benefit to anybody, and that it would have been far better to accept the original plans of the borough?

Mr. Redhead: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the fact that I am to meet representatives of the authority to discuss it is in itself a refutation of the suggestion of enforcing or imposing something on the authority.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has received from Gloucestershire Education Committee concerning the new selection procedure for secondary education; and whether he is satisfied that the 11-plus examination is not being replaced by a similar or identical selection arrangement under another name.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has received a reorganisation plan under Circular 10/65 from the Gloucestershire authority, but he cannot comment on it until he has had more time to study it.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend. Will he confirm that he will not allow a scheme to go forward that does not abolish the 11-plus examination in Gloucestershire?

Mr. Redhead: I repeat what my right hon. Friend has already said today. He will not be prepared to give approval to any plans which retain selection at 11-plus.

Sir E. Boyle: Is it not the case that the Gloucestershire authority for many years has been abolishing the 11-plus and introducing comprehensive education in

those areas where it makes educational sense? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if pressure is put on Gloucestershire, of all authorities, by the Government, their policy will be seen to be as dogmatic as their strongest opponents fear?

Mr. Redhead: I gladly seize this opportunity to acknowledge that Gloucestershire is moving steadily towards comprehensive education throughout the county and that, in terms of geography, about one-third of the county is already served by fully comprehensive 11–18 schools. I am encouraged to feel that its initiative will carry it further to full implementation of the principle.

School Meals (Catering Advisers)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is to happen to Her Majesty's Inspectors with special responsibility for meals in maintained schools, in the light of Circular 20/66; and what is the estimated additional cost of the professional catering experts.

Mr. Redhead: They are being assigned to other necessary duties within H.M. Inspectorate. The cost to the Department of employing catering advisers will be less than the former arrangement.

Mr. Morrison: Does not the Minister of State agree that the cost of the subsidy for school meals will be increased as a result of this circular? In any case, why was it felt necessary to supersede H.M. Inspectorate which has done the work so well in recent years?

Mr. Redhead: The change was made because, in the light of experience, we feel that it is the most effective way of catering for the need. The educational aspects of school meals will continue to be over-sighted by general inspectors.

Stoneleigh County Secondary School

Mr. Sharples: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now reconsider his decision not to receive a delegation from the Worcester Park and Stoneleigh Parents' Association with regard to the proposed closure of Stoneleigh County Secondary School.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir.

Mr. Sharples: Will the Minister of State reconsider this decision, in view of


the very strong feelings which are held by many parents living in this area and in view of his own admission that there may well be a great deal of background to this decision of which his Department is unaware?

Mr. Redhead: I am well aware that there is local opposition to the Surrey authority's proposal in this respect. We have received 30 letters from parents and a petition. Each of these is being carefully considered, and it is my right hon. Friend's view that a deputation would not be able to say anything which has not already been said in writing and which will be studied, together with the authority's statement and comments, with the greatest care.

Mr. Sharples: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall attempt to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Drug Addiction

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have taken place with a view to instructing teachers to recognise signs of drug addiction in schoolchildren and to ensure swift and effective treatment for them.

Mr. Denis Howell: None directly, as this is a matter for the local education authorities and the schools. But my right hon. Friend proposes to offer advice on the general subject in a forthcoming revised edition of the Department's pamphlet "Health Education".

Mrs. Short: Will my hon. Friend give this matter his utmost support, because a situation is developing in which schoolchildren of 11 and 12 are now experimenting with drugs of all kinds? This is a very serious situation.

Mr. Howell: Indeed we are aware of the growingproblem, although I think we ought to keep it in proportion. The figures for under-20s provided by the Home Office show that the number of drug addicts in 1960 was I and 145 in 1965. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that authorities where this is a problem are giving detailed advice to teachers upon drug addiction.

Nursery Education

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research is being carried out by his Department into the need for nursery education for children aged three to five years.

Mr. Redhead: This is one of the matters which the Central Advisory Councils for Education has been examining as part of its study of primary education generally.

Mrs. Short: Can we expect a report from the Department in the near future? Does not my hon. Friend accept that when a building is being erected it is essential to get the foundations right, otherwise it is necessary to spend a lot of money on getting the superstructure repaired, which is what we are doing at the moment?

Mr. Redhead: Generally we accept that nursery education on a part-time basis is beneficial for children below the age of five. The report of the Plowden Council will be published in January, and my right hon. Friend will study the whole question of nursery education in the light of the recommendations contained therein.

Colleges of Education (Report)

Sir E. Boyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Working Party on the Government of Colleges of Education; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: I confirm once again my warm support for the recommendations of the Study Group, and I can now tell the House that the organisations concerned have endorsed its general conclusions, with some reservations on points of detail. I am now considering both the terms of a circular which I shall issue for guidance and also the question of possible legislation. Meanwhile, I hope that pending the issue of a circular all the authorities concerned will consider most carefully (as many of them are already doing) how best to give effect to the Report.

Sir E. Boyle: Does that answer mean that the local authority associations concerned, especially the A.M.C. and the


C.C.A., have sent back favourable observations in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry? Is he aware that, if he wishes to bring in enabling legislation on this highly important topic, he can count on co-operation from this side of the House?

Mr. Crosland: The answer to the first part of the question is that the local authority associations welcome the general spirit and purpose of the report, although making recommendations on points of detail. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the second part of the question.

Part-Time Teachers (Superannuation)

Sir E. Boyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to introduce a superannuation scheme for part-time teachers.

Mr. Redhead: The Working Party which has been examining this question has produced an interim report suggesting that a scheme might be introduced in April 1967. My right hon. Friend has sought the views of the appropriate associations on this report, and shall be guided as to the next steps by their replies and by their comments on draft regulations which he will send them as soon as practicable.

Sir E. Boyle: In the time-honoured phrase, is the Minister of State aware that it is really time we had action on this? In view of the anxieties, which are perhaps in some way exaggerated, about the raising of the school-leaving age, is it not highly important that at present we should do everything possible to attract part-time teachers into the service?

Mr. Redhead: I do not dissent in the slightest degree from what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the urgency of doing something in this connection. The working party is giving further consideration to the detailed development of the scheme and to its possible application to other teachers. The working out of the detailed scheme presents some complications, but it is being proceeded with with all possible speed.

Student Grants

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and

Science what proposals he has for replacing the present system of student grants by one of loans.

Mr. Crosland: None, Sir.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that neither now nor in the future will he seek to replace the system of grants by one of loans? Does he appreciate the very real concern in the student world on this matter?

Mr. Crosland: There is a good deal of concern reflecting the point of view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, although, to be fair, one would have to say that there was also a considerable volume of public opinion that some element of loan in the total system would be desirable in view of the growing volume of student support. I can only reiterate what I have said, that I have no present intention of replacing grants by loans. Indeed, if one is talking in terms of "replacing", I cannot imagine that any Government would ever consider replacement, though I think that it is unrealistic to imagine that the question of a loan element can be kept out of at least general public discussion on these matters.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of grants to students is now firmly embedded and it has made a massive contribution to education generally in Britain? Will he give an assurance that it will in no way be destroyed, but, on the contrary, he will look at it again to see whether it can be improved?

Mr. Crosland: It is true that the grant system has made a great contribution to the expansion of further education. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that the total volume of grant support is now a very considerable part of the total education budget, and any Government must keep this under review the whole time. But, having said that, I reiterate that I have no present intention of replacing grants by loans.

Sixth-Form Pupils (Maintenance Allowances)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will announce proposals for increased maintenance allowances for sixth-form pupils.

Mr. Redhead: This is a matter for the discretion of local education authorities.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In view of the resolution on this matter accepted by the right hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State at his own party conference, does not the Minister of State feel bound to take some rather more positive step in this direction?

Mr. Redhead: We have no present plans for advising local authorities on the level of allowances which they should pay. Our latest information does not suggest that there is any need to offer them advice in this connection, and we are satisfied with the exercise of their discretion.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will my hon. Friend accept that it takes precisely as much to keep a 16-year-old as it does to keep an 18-year-old and that, therefore, there are many unfortunate young people who are under-privileged educationally today, to the detriment of the State? Will he urge local authorities to improve their grant system in this respect?

Mr. Redhead: It is fair to add that the latest information available, which relates to May, 1964, showed that the great majority of local education authorities were paying allowances at rates higher than those recommended by the Departmental Working Party in 1957, when it was then a matter subject to departmental approval. In fact, the then Minister approved rates lower than those recommended by the working party.

Workers' Educational Association (Grant)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase the grant to the Workers' Educational Association for teaching expenses from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir.,

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in recent years there has been a considerable increase in the demand for adult education and that the W.E.A., because of financial problems, is having difficulty in expanding its activities to meet this demand? Will he reconsider his answer?

Mr. Redhead: I am aware that the W.E.A. wants this increase in order to undertake a big expansion of its work. However, other responsible bodies would, no doubt, wish to undertake a similar expansion if funds were available. I regret very much that I cannot see any prospect in the near future of finding funds for a substantial increase in adult education in view of the claims of other sectors of the education service. I should add that there is some reason to doubt that suitable staff would be found for a sudden expansion in face of competition from other forms of higher education.

Computers

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the policy of his Department with regard to the provisions of medium-size and small computers specifically for training purposes.

Mr. Crosland: Proposals for computer installations are considered by the Computer Board in the case of universities, and by local education authorities, subject to the sanction of my Department, in the case of other higher education establishments. The need for access by students as well as research and other needs is borne in mind in considering applications, but it would normally be uneconomic to provide computers solely for training purposes.

Mr. Mitchell: Is there not an acute shortage of young people trained in computer skills, and would not relatively small expenditure on computers designed specifically for teaching purposes greatly help to overcome the shortage?

Mr. Crosland: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says in the first part of his supplementary question, but this is a field in which equipment is extremely expensive. So far as one can make sure that machines serve more than one purpose, it seems to me essential to do so, but we certainly try to bear his purpose in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the expert advice of computer manufacturers is that these small computers are a waste of money because their educational value can be so quickly exhausted and is far too little for the amount of money required, and that the educational purpose is served best


by making use of much more complicated machines, which can only be done collectively?

Mr. Crosland: I think that that reflects the bias of our expenditure in the education system as a whole.

Lecturers (Overtime Payment)

Mr. Joseph Kevin McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the effect of the Government's economic policy on the payment of overtime to lecturers in institutes of further education; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Crosland: I cannot trace any.

Mr. McNamara: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the recent circular, considerable concern is felt by teachers in further education because the Government's present policy is being used as an excuse for increasing the work load, and this is leading to some lack of cooperation in other plans, for example, regarding education in industry?

Mr. Crosland: All I can say is that after my hon. Friend put his Question down we searched our files and could find no representations on this subject. If he would care to bring to our attention any goings-on which he thinks are wrong or scandalous, we shall gladly give them attention.

Mentally Handicapped Children

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what experiments are being conducted by his Department in educating mentally handicapped children.

Mr. Redhead: The Department is supporting a number of relevant research projects, which are included in the list given in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th February, 1966.

Mr. Hamling: I thank my hon. Friend for the helpful attitude of his Department, but is he aware of the growing feeling in this sector of education that a great deal more can be done for these children educationally than was considered possible some years ago?

Mr. Redhead: I accept that view, and my hon. Friend can have my assurance that I am personally concerned to see that all effective measures of research

are undertaken. I have been laying plans to see a number of such projects to judge their results.

Mr. John Hall: Is similar action being taken in respect of spastic children, who, on the whole, do not seem to receive the same help as the mentally handicapped?

Mr. Redhead: Any project put to us for research in this regard will be most carefully and sympathetically considered.

Educational Projects, Scotland (Grants)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now seek power to provide grants for educational and recreational projects located in Scotland but organised by English and Welsh schools.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 28th July.

Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that great pressure has been put not only on his Department but on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on this issue? This has been going on for two years. Can we expect some early legislation?

Mr. Howell: We are aware of the continued pressure because we are at the receiving end, but I cannot offer the prospect of early legislation.

Sir E. Boyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, from the point of view of a project well known to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, his answer is very unsatisfactory? Some of us may try to seek an opportunity for filling in this very small hole in our legislation on a matter which could easily be put right.

Mr. Howell: We have considerable sympathy for the aims here, but, having looked at the legal difficulties, I am not sure that it can be dealt with as simply as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Teachers (Conditions of Service)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to standardise the conditions of service for members of the teaching profession.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir. Recommendations made jointly by representatives of the teachers and their employers are already widely adopted in the maintained sector.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even in simple things like standing for Parliament, some teachers find that they can get leave of absence with full pay while others get nothing? Is he further aware that the whole of the teaching profession would welcome any inquiry which would lead to the removal of the situation in which teachers are equal in the eyes of the Department of Education and Science, but in the eyes of the local authorities some are more equal than others?

Mr. Redhead: I am surprised that my hon. Friend suggests that it is simple to stand for election to Parliament. I am aware that certain teachers in different sectors of education perform similar work and there may be a certain superficial appeal behind my hon. Friend's remarks. But there are many wide variations. The joint recommendations covered conditions of travel, sick pay, maternity leave for married women and questions of that kind. It has not been the practice, except for pensions and salaries, for the Government to interfere with the employers' rights to determine the teachers' conditions of service.

School Milk and Meals

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest estimate of the amount spent in a year out of public funds on school milk and meals.

Mr. Redhead: In England and Wales in 1966–67, £81 million for school meals and £14 million for school milk.

Mr. Marten: As the hon. Gentleman says that he keeps this question under constant review, has he yet any proposals to make whereby the cost of this to public funds can be somewhat reduced in view of the other competing claims in education?

Mr. Redhead: I cannot go further than what was said in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on 4th August last—that this matter is kept under continuous review but no immediate change is proposed.

Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware that there would be the strongest possible opposition from this side of the House to any attempt to lower basic nutritional standards by removing subsidies on school meals and school milk?

Mr. Redhead: I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Local Government Councillors (Training Courses)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is aware of the course for training local government councillors which is running at the Luton College of Technology; and if he will encourage other colleges to provide similar courses.

Mr. Redhead: I was interested to hear of this course and should welcome the provision of similar courses where the demand exists and the college is equipped to respond to it.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if democracy is to have any meaning we must, in the increasing complexity of local and national Government, be able to train people who can meet officials on equal terms? Does not he also agree that this type of course would play a vital part in such training?

Mr. Redhead: I have been too long in local government not to appreciate the force of those remarks, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Secretary of State has no power to require local education authorities and colleges to mount particular courses. But I hope that my reply to these questions today will provide encouragement of the kind my hon. Friend desires.

Bristol Polytechnic

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he has given to the scheme for the proposed Bristol Polytechnic: what site is being proposed; and when building will commence.

Mr. Crosland: I shall not be in a position to invite local education authorities to submit schemes for establishing polytechnics until I have had the advice of all the regional advisory councils.

Mr. Dobson: Can my right hon. Friend not do something to hasten this matter? We in Bristol are very conscious of the need for expanding the polytechnic type of education which is at present so lacking.

Mr. Crosland: I hope to have had the advice of all regional advisory councils by the end of the month. When I have it, I shall hope to announce the preliminary list of polytechnics as soon as possible. The Bristol scheme has been welcomed both locally and in the region as a whole, and, as my hon. Friend knows, some informal discussions have already taken place.

Teachers' Superannuation Regulations

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made towards rectifying the anomalies arising out of the Teachers' Superannuation Regulations which were referred to by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire in the debate on 19th November, 1965.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend is examining these alleged anomalies in preparing draft teachers' superannuation regulations about which, as the Act requires, he hopes shortly to consult representatives of local education authorities and teachers.

Mr. Longden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nearly a year has passed since he made more sympathetic noises than those towards this reform? I do not like the use of the word "alleged". These are anomalies and their removal would give great satisfaction to the teaching profession.

Mr. Redhead: The Working Party which has been examining this question has suggested in an interim report that a scheme might be introduced in April, 1967. I am aware that the existing provisions represent certain anomalies and some considerable degree of dissatisfaction, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it necessarily involves some expenditure of time in consulting all the interests which are concerned."

Village Schools, Wiltshire

Mr. Awdry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many village schools have been closed in Wiltshire since October 1964.

Mr. Redhead: Seven.

Mr. Awdry: Is the Minister of State aware that these closures arouse very strong local feeling? Will he undertake that such feeling will be taken into account before any decisions are taken?

Mr. Redhead: All proposals by local education authorities to close schools require the approval of the Secretary of State under Section 13(4) of the Education Act, 1944, following public notice of the proposals and an opportunity for the lodging of objections. Before giving a decision my right hon. Friend considers all relevant factors that are proper to be considered in this context.

National Treasures (Export)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to prevent the export of national treasures of historic interest of a monetary value of less than £2,000.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Machinery already in existence provides adequate safeguards for items of national importance as defined by the Waverley Committee.

Mr. Cooke: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we have this arbitrary financial line? How does she propose to prevent the break up of collections of national interest and their export as individual items falling well below the limit? Will she look seriously at this matter again?

Miss Lee: That does not arise because £2,000 in present purchasing terms is less than the original £1,000 of the Waverley Recommendations and many safeguards have been built in.

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent scandal in which an important public body, the Royal College of Surgeons, sold two important pictures by Joseph Wright to an American purchaser by private treaty without asking whether any British gallery required them and that this was followed by the Reviewing Committee permitting the export of the pictures on the irrelevant and indefensible grounds that there are two similar pictures in private collections? Will she do something to prevent that sort of thing recurring?

Miss Lee: My right hon. Friend has brought up a rather controversial matter in which the facts are in dispute. The distinguished American who bought these two pictures has very kindly given one of them on indefinite loan to the Tate Gallery. I would add that the recommendation here is that the National Portrait Gallery should be asked for advice on portraits by persons whose names appear in the Dictionary of National Biography, so that we are doing our best to safeguard national treasures. But we must keep in mind that London is also a very great art centre and that a total closed shop would not necessarily be in the national interest.

Advanced Technology Courses (County Durham)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what courses of advanced technology are available for students in the technical colleges in the new town of Peterlee in County Durham.

Mr. Crosland: There is none in Peterlee itself, but both part-time and full-time advanced courses are available at colleges which serve this area.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not an astonishing state of affairs that in a new technical college in a new town, a modern town, students do not have facilities for studying advanced technology? Surely my right hon. Friend can do something about that.

Mr. Crosland: I slightly suspect that my right hon. Friend is warming up for supplementaries which he may ask on a later Question this afternoon. On the point of substance, he will be aware, as most hon. Members are, that it is essential, if we are to get an economic use of resources, that we should, to some extent at any rate, concentrate on places in which advanced courses are put on, and while I have great sympathy about the problems of Peterlee, the fact is that advanced courses are available in places within easy travelling distance of Peterlee.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decision has been reached by the Government on the siting of a technological university in the county of Durham.

Mr. Crosland: In the light of the current financial situation, I have regret-

fully decided that I cannot approve the launching of a new technological university in the North-East in the years immediately ahead.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I warm up I do not require any inspiration from him or anybody else? I regard some of the answers on this subject as highly unsatisfactory. Here is a site in a new town which is modernised to the highest possible degree and in the centre of a vast population and with easy access and with many young people who want to enter universities, particularly to study technologies. Surely this is the appropriate place to have a university.

Mr. Crosland: I think that my right hon. Friend knows that I was extremely sympathetic to the idea of a new technological university in the North-East, for which I think that there are extremely strong arguments. We have decided that it cannot go ahead in present circumstances because of the country's financial situation. However, I have to add that if there were a decision that it should go ahead, there would be many other strong candidates besides Peterlee for its location.

Flowers Committee (Recommendations)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in carrying out the recommendations of the Flowers Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: The Computer Board has now been established under the chairmanship of Professor Flowers. The universities with KDF9 computers have ordered up-graded machines, and in a number of cases these have been installed and are working. The programme allocation of £3 million for 1966–67 has been almost entirely committed and some £2 million of the allocation for 1967–68 has been taken up. The Computer Board is discussing with the universities the programme for the years ahead, the principles which should govern the proposed regional centres, and the provision of adequate software for the computers now being installed in universities.

Mr. Hordern: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that the Flowers Committee reported that if its recommendations were not carried out in precise form, there would be very serious consequences for the future of scientific research and the computer industry in Britain? Will he therefore give an undertaking to carry out the recommendations of the Flowers Committee in five years and not six as he has suggested?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot give that undertaking in that form. The best undertaking that the Flowers Committee recommendations will be substantially carried out is shown by the fact that Professor Flowers himself is now Chairman of the Computer Board.

School-Leaving Age (Raising)

Mr. Hornby: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science for how many extra children additional school accommodation will be needed as a result of raising the school-leaving age in 1970–71.

Mr. Crosland: The number of extra children staying on at school will be about 350,000. It is too early yet to make a final assessment of the number who will need additional accommodation.

Mr. Hornby: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the number of teachers required in maintained secondary schools to raise the school-leaving age by one year in 1970–71 without any increase in the average size of classes at that time.

Mr. Crosland: 21,000.

Mr. Hornby: Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that if this desirable goal of raising the school-leaving age is to be achieved, there will have to be a major acceleration both in the school building programme and in the recruitment of teachers? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to give the House regular progress reports, perhaps in the form of a White Paper, telling us what steps he proposes to take to make this policy possible?

Mr. Crosland: I would certainly be very happy to give the House regular reports on this subject. The hon. Gentle-

man spoke of the acceleration of the building programme. For this reform there will be an extra building programme of no less than £100 million. Teacher recruitment is now going ahead faster than ever before.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to Great Britain's balance of payments of full membership of the European Economic Community as a result of their agricultural policy;

(2) what estimate he has made of the increase in the price of food likely as a result of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Any estimate must be uncertain because of the difficulty of foreseeing future world market conditions for foodstuffs and of forecasting the Community arrangements which might be in force after United Kingdom entry into the Community. The best estimates we can make at present, however, on the basis of present Community arrangements and prices and present world prices, suggest that, after any transitional period, the adverse effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments might be of the order of £175 to £250 million and on retail food prices of 10 to 14 per cent. which represents about 2½to 3½r cent, on the cost of living.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he carries out a successful negotiation, it might well be very much less than the figure he has mentioned? Is he aware that his repeated statements about hundreds of millions of £s are just exaggerating the situation? Is he aware that the increase of about £400 million in the price of food is nothing compared with the increase in the price of food under his Government, which amounted to £423 million in the first 18 months after he came to power? Will he stop misleading the House on this question?

The Prime Minister: I gave the hon. Gentleman our best estimate of this, as he asked. I told him that any estimate must be uncertain, because many people


expect not only downward changes in Common Market prices, but upward changes in world prices, which would narrow the gap and therefore narrow the effect on our balance of payments and also the cost-of-living figure. But these are the best figures available on the basis of present information without speculating too much about the future.
As for food prices resulting from Government policy, I remember the very strong pressure from right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the debate on the censure Motion on the Agricultural Price Review in 1965 to increase food prices. In fact, since then, in the past three or four months, food prices in this country have been falling—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—food prices in this country have been falling according to the official retail price index.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say what consideration he has been able to give to the question of what effect a rise in food prices in this country resulting from our becoming a member of the European Economic Community might have upon the Government's wages policy generally?

The Prime Minister: That is obviously one of the problems, and we all recognise that there are problems, but on the wider issue I ask my hon. Friend to wait until I answer a later Question.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about Her Majesty's Government's proposals for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: With permission I will answer this Question at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INVESTMENT BOARD

Mr. Dickens: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to establish a National Investment Board.

The Prime Minister: Not at present, Sir.

Mr. Dickens: Does not the Prime Minister agree that supervision of private sector investment decisions by a national investment board is fundamental to our

economic planning? Does he not further agree that we cannot ensure that private investment is steered to key growth industries until we establish such a board?

The Prime Minister: I think that the present arrangements are about right. We have pretty strict control over the public investment programme and with private investment the House has recently approved our measures for investment grants designed to secure the right movements in investment, with particular reference to the development areas.

Mr. Barber: I understood the Prime Minister to say in his Answer, "Not at present". Does this mean that he may set up a national investment board in future? Secondly, what action is being taken to counter the alarming predictions, by the Board of Trade and the C.B.I., of falling industrial investment?

The Prime Minister: I cannot envisage any circumstances in which a national investment board would be necessary, because what would be hoped from it could be achieved in other ways. The Board of Trade estimates of the fall in investment are considerably lower than the C.B.I, estimates, but the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the recent statement by the Governor of the Bank of England and also be aware that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has been having discussions with the C.B.I. this week on this very problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20th October, 1966, at the Mansion House on economic affairs represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing lack of confidence in industry over the attitude of the Government to private investment and to the profit motive? Would the Prime Minister consider making an early statement on the Government's attitude to both of these subjects and would he


also consider making an early statement on the proposals regarding industrial investment, the very serious decline in which can be seen?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said at this dinner was exactly in line with what I said at the National Productivity Conference a few weeks earlier, when I said that we would be very concerned to hear any views that industry had about measures necessary to stimulate private investment. Since the time of my right hon. Friend's speech, at the Lord Mayor's Dinner, there has been the statement by the Governor of the Bank of England about credit for private investment.

Mr. Lubbock: What representations has the Prime Minister had from industry about broadening the investment grant system, and the need to be more selective in the encouragement of investment in particular types of new plant, and the need to encourage innovations, for example in the computer industry?

The Prime Minister: Most of the representations from industry have suggested that it is too selective and should be spread over a wider area. Our views on this have been made known to the House. We want to encourage manufacturing industry. There is special help for computers in the Government's proposals. With regard to the most recent views that we have had from industry, by which I understand the hon. Gentleman to mean the Confederation of British Industry, the discussions between the C.B.I, and my right hon. Friend are confidential and we had better await the outcome of them.

Mr. Mendelson: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that investment allowances and investment grants are not going to be sufficient? Is not the main obstacle to further investment and the reason for the cut-down in investment, the policy of deflation and the fear of so many industrialists that they might not be able to sell their goods if they increase investment? Is there not a need for a root and branch reform in the Government's economic policy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

The Prime Minister: I think that the root and branch reform that my hon.
Friend wants is not the same as that which hon. Gentlemen opposite want. I do not think that I had better add to what I have already said about investment policy. We were told that the biggest impediment was the shortage of immediate cash for investment, and this has been dealt with by the statement of the Governor of the Bank of England [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen think that they know so much more about it than perhaps many in industry, and have any evidence of firms wanting to invest, and not being able to get credit from the Bank, perhaps they will give the necessary information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — WINTER EMERGENCY COMMITTEE

Mr. Webster: asked the Prime Minister what is the membership of the Winter Emergency Committee; and how often it meets.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 3rd November. [Vol. 735, c. 166.]

Mr. Webster: Would the Prime Minister reassure the House that there will be adequate supplies of fuel and power this winter, by telling us what action this Committee has taken nor recommended?

The Prime Minister: When this Committee was set up I made it plain that its purpose was to take such action as can be taken in advance of the worst period of the winter, to see that plant is available on time, if it can be, and also to see that coal stocks are distributed in adequate quantities. Coal stocks are more satisfactory now than last year, and although there have been some delays in plant installation, some delays in the delivery of plant from the contractors, as happened last year, the margin of supplies over normal winter peak demand looks more encouraging now than a year ago. Last year, and no one could have prevented this, there were breakdowns, due to the facts which have been the subject of the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for strengthening the Department of Economic Affairs.

The Prime Minister: The Department has all the powers that it needs to perform its duties, Sir.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the most notable recruits to the D.E.A., Mr. Samuel Brittain. has recently written that the last Ministerial changes "mark the end of the D.E.A. as a major influence on economic policy"——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen must not quote during Question Time.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Prime Minister aware that the T.U.C. apparently endorsed this judgment by insisting that the Chancellor attend all its meetings with the First Secretary of State?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Samuel Brittain is perfectly entitled to write what he wants and to hold his own opinions. They do not happen to be my opinions or the opinions of my right hon. Friend. I have had no suggestion that the T.U.C. believes that the D.E.A. has not the power that it needs. The reason why it wanted the presence of my right hon. Friend was that certain of the issues that it wanted to discuss were affairs coming purely within the responsibility of the Treasury.

Mr. Atkinson: Would my right hon. Friend now agree that following the excellent policy initiated by the Treasury in introducing the Selective Employment Tax—[Interruption.]—I repeat the excellent policy initiated by the Treasury—the time has now come to transfer this job to the Department of Economic Affairs in order that this tax can be replaced by a levy to develop the purposive planning that we have in mind?

The Prime Minister: I am old-fashioned enough to believe that taxation matters should be the concern of the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPENDENT TERRITORIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the arrangement of responsibility between Ministers ensures adequate attention to aid for the still dependent territories formerly administered by the Colonial Office; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and I can assure the House that full account is taken of the particular and direct responsibility which we have for the economic and social progress of our dependent territories.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Following this necessary reorganisation, will the Prime Minister ensure that there are enough officials, particularly overseas, to carry out our responsibilities to these still dependent territories?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, with the new organisation of the Ministry of Overseas Development it is possible to ensure that, whatever funds are available for development and aid, they are channelled to where they are most needed, particularly in the Commonwealth.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DELEGATIONS

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what instruction he has given to Ministers since 20th July about the number of staff who accompany them on official trips abroad.

The Prime Minister: Major Departments were asked by the Treasury on 25th July to ensure that overseas delegations, whether led by Ministers or by officials, were pruned to the absolute minimum required for the business in hand.

Mr. Marten: While I am one of those who do not wish to criticise Ministers about their overseas trips, if they are in the interests of Britain, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say what effect his instructions have had? Have less officials accompanied Ministers on their trips since the instructions?

The Prime Minister: Yes. To take one example which is within the Treasury, about which I was asked, the numbers


accompanying my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the I.M.F. meetings this year were the lowest for very many years. This is a practice which is now being followed. I intend also to ensure that where Ministers concerned with exports attend, for example, trade fairs, which are very desirable, they should not necessarily be accompanied by any staff at all, but should be serviced by local staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister if he will make arrangements to answer Questions in the House at 3 o'clock on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so as to enable hon. Members to receive an oral answer.

The Prime Minister: These are matters for the House as a whole, but I think that the present arrangements are working well.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is a most elusive person and that whether one can get an Oral Answer from him three weeks ahead depends entirely upon the whim of the Government printer? Will he look into this?

The Prime Minister: I think that much depends upon whether the time of hon. Members with genuine Questions to put is wasted by some of the supplementary questions which we get occasionally, only occasionally, from the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend note this Question and Answer and will he take note that the other side of the House seem to be gluttons for punishment?

INTERNATIONAL HOTEL ASSOCIATION (HOLIDAY TRAVEL ALLOWANCE)

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the International Hotel Association about the £50 tourist limit; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister: Neither I nor, so I understand, my right hon. Friends

the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Board of Trade, have any trace of such representations. But if the hon. Member has any other organisation in mind or has any information about the views of the International Hotel Association I should be grateful if he would let me know.

Sir C. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting the British Travel Association to see whether it has any evidence of measures of retaliation, by either the European Hotel Corporation or foreign national tourist organisations against the "Come to Britain" campaign?

The Prime Minister: I certainly will make those inquiries. I am still not clear about the representations that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It might be that what he has in mind is not what he calls the International Hotel Association but the International Union of Official Travel Organisations. I have that letter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also search through his files and see exactly what organisation it is, and what letter I am supposed to have received.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Did the First Lord of the Treasury think of consulting the other members of E.F.T.A. before imposing this limit so as to pay them the courtesy denied to them in 1964?

The Prime Minister: We took all the necessary steps to inform all concerned. This is, I think, an O.E.C.D. matter, which includes the countries of E.F.T.A., and the countries of O.E.C.D. were informed.

Mr. Lipton: Mr. Liptonrose——

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports that there are many quite simple ways of avoiding the £50 limit? Would he ask his right hon. Friend to look at these reports?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend has any information about ways of avoiding the £50 limit, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be glad to have it.

Mr. Lipton: Mr. Liptonrose——

Mr. Speaker: I would have called the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton),


but as it was after half-past three, I called another supplementary on the last Question.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now answer Question No. Q4.
The position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the European Economic Community was stated in the Gracious Speech on 21st April in these terms:
My Government will continue to promote the economic unity of Europe and to strengthen the links between the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community. They would be ready to enter the European Economic Community provided essential British and Commonwealth interests were safeguarded.
This policy, which was itself a reaffirmation of that laid down in the Labour Party election manifesto, has also been reaffirmed on many occasions in this House, in the country and abroad, notably in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, then First Secretary, at Stockholm on 6th May.
On 21st April, 1 informed the House that we had made certain Ministerial arrangements to ensure
that any opportunities that do present themselves in Europe can be quickly seized upon so that they can be evaluated…",
and I said that it would be our intention
to probe in a very positive sense the terms on which we would be able to enter the European Economic Community and its related organisations".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1966; Vol. 727, c. 90.]
In recent weeks the Government have conducted a deep and searching review of the whole problem of Britain's relations with the E.E.C., including our membership of E.F.T.A. and of the Commonwealth. Every aspect of the Treaty of Rome itself, of decisions taken subsequent to its signature, and all the implications and consequences which might be expected to flow from British entry, have been examined in depth.
In the light of this review the Government have decided that a new high-level approach must now be made to see whether the conditions exist—or do not exist—for fruitful negotiations, and

the basis on which such negotiations could take place.
It is vital that we maintain the closest relations with our E.F.T.A. colleagues. Her Majesty's Government therefore now propose to invite the Heads of Government of the E.F.T.A. countries to attend a conference in London in the next few weeks to discuss the problems involved in moves by E.F.T.A. countries to join the E.E.C.
Following that conference, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I intend to engage in a series of discussions with each of the Heads of Government of the Six, for the purpose of establishing whether it appears likely that essential British and Commonwealth interests could be safeguarded if Britain were to accept the Treaty of Rome and join E.E.C. In the light of these discussions the Government will then take its decision whether or not to activate the arrangements for negotiating for entry, and what the appropriate time for such negotiations would be. Commonwealth Governments as well as E.F.T.A. Governments have been informed and we shall maintain the closest degree of consultation with them throughout.
The House will agree that—provided the right conditions for negotiations are established—it is vital that we should enter only when we have secured a healthy economy and a strong balance of payments, with the £ standing no less firm and high than it is today.
I want the House, the country, and our friends abroad to know that the Government are approaching the discussions I have foreshadowed with the clear intention and determination to enter E.E.C. if, as we hope, our essential British and Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded. We mean business.
It will, of course, be our intention to keep the House as fully informed as is possible in the circumstances of the progress of our discussions. If, as I would expect, there is a general desire in the House for a debate before these important meetings begin, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be glad to arrange discussions through the usual channels to agree on a date which would meet the convenience of the House.

Mr. Fisher: I am sure that we are all most grateful to the Prime Minister for


his important statement, which carries us a little further along this road, but would not he go further still and make it quite clear that we make now a declaration of intent, including signing the Treaty of Rome and acceptance of the common agricultural policy and subject only to the transistional arrangements which would be necessary and special arrangements for New Zealand?

The Prime Minister: Now that we have announced that we are to enter into these discussions to see what terms would be available and what can be done to safeguard essential Commonwealth and British interests, I do not think that it would be helpful for me, even in reply to a supplementary question, to start saying now exactly what our position will be in those discussions. The discussions should take place with the Heads of European Governments.

Mr. Edelman: In warmly welcoming the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask him whether he has received any further communication from the French President since the latter's recent Press conference, in which he stated that he had not changed his position about British entry since 1963? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend take care to make absolutely sure that Britain does not receive another snub from France?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter of the most supreme importance for Britain, for Europe and for our partners in many other areas. In a matter of this degree of importance, I do not think that we can settle the issue by the mutual exchange of Press conferences. I believe that it requires direct discussion. Therefore, I should not feel that any particular statement made in a Press conference necessarily represented the last word on such a question.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister and the House are aware that we shall support him and his colleagues in any genuine approach which he makes for membership of the Common Market. However, the statement which he has just made is in many ways disappointing in view of the emphasis which he himself has placed on the deep review of the situation which the Government have made and the probings which have

already been carried out by the present Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the previous Foreign Secretary.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say in which way the last E.F.T.A. meeting at Lisbon and these Ministerial probings have fallen short of what is required for the Government to make a preliminary statement about their intent? Do the Government conditions to which he has referred remain exactly the same as they have in the past—in other words, as laid down in the Bristol speech?
Can the Prime Minister also say whether the new set of probings which are to take place will include matters beyond the Treaty of Rome, including the future defence of Europe and the future of sterling arrangements and the finances of Europe?
Finally, may I say to him that I am sure that the House will want to debate this matter, and we are, therefore, grateful for the offer which he has made; but we will require much more information than he seemed apparently prepared to give us at this stage, because otherwise we cannot form any judgment about the Government's present position.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening words. I note, as I fully expected, that he would find it convenient to have an early debate on this question.
The last meeting of E.F.T.A. was not at Prime Ministerial level and it was not specifically concerned with the question of the conditions which a number of individual E.F.T.A. countries as well as Britain might find it necessary to press in any negotiations of that kind. We therefore felt it right, having concluded the review which we have held, to move first in consultation with our E.F.T.A. colleagues, many of whom, as I say, would like to join the E.E.C., and from there to proceed to individual discussions with the Heads of Governments in Europe.
On the specific questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I should not myself feel that these talks should be primarily or to any large extent concerned with questions of European defence. In the past, many of the difficulties arising about the economic negotiations have been clouded by


defence considerations. Some of the very large difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman himself faced were due to certain conditions at that time being laid down on defence issues which no longer apply. N.A.T.O. is the right place for talking about those questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the right place for talking about defence. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome about defence, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want us to make it more difficult by seeking to write a large defence section into the Treaty of Rome.
Naturally, we will consider what should be said to the House. The purposes which all of us jointly have in mind here would not be served by going into too much detail about the terms and conditions that we should want to put into our discussions with Europe. If we have to have negotiations in the House first before discussions start, obviously our position will be greatly weakened. The House knows that there are deep problems about entry into Europe, more of which were raised at Question Time earlier, and I am not sure that it would be wise to go into greater detail than I have already.

Mr. Heffer: Can my right hon. Friend say whether preliminary discussions with the E.F.T.A. Governments are intended to get them to agree to a joint approach, or are we clearing the ground for an individual approach by this country? Secondly, would he not agree that one of our greatest difficulties to entry into E.E.C. is our close association with the United States, which means that the French view us with some suspicion in this respect?

The Prime Minister: I recognise that our association with the United States has been one of the very big problems. The position of Britain as an Atlantic Power has been one of the big drawbacks to French acceptance of British entry.

On the question of the E.F.T.A. meeting, what we shall try to do is discuss with our E.F.T.A. colleagues the ideas that they and we have about relations with the E.E.C., to see how many of us—as many do—would like to join the Treaty of Rome and to consider whether we should proceed on the basis of indivi-

dual or some kind of collective discussions. However, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) will be the first to tell us from his experience that, in the past, the E.E.C. has insisted upon individual applications.

Even so, it is very important that the E.F.T.A. countries should try to move as closely together as possible, because there is a big difference in an organisation which is not one person applying or even in a suppliant position asking to join the Six. It is a big thing this. There is something approaching a merger of six countries, on the one hand, with another six, on the other hand. Therefore, we shall try to see what are our common interests and problems in any approach which, after these high-level probes, seems possible.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: At an earlier stage, the Prime Minister gave some figures which were useful to the House. Will he convey them to his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet, because they are wildly different from those which were given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland during the agricultural debate. He said that it might mean 2½per cent. on the cost of living. I take it that that would be spread over some years, but he did not say that.

The Prime Minister: Certainly, it is a total cost for as long as it is required to do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I gave the figures which I was asked for. I said that it would mean 10 to 14 per cent. on food prices. Those are the "neat" figures. They do not take account of increases in distributors' margins—[Interruption.] I am trying to give the figures to hon. Members, who may or may not be capable of understanding them. They do not take account of possible effects on wages and, therefore, on other prices. They are the simple food prices. They are not different from those given by my right hon. Friends.
I have not the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland in mind. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has quoted a higher figure, not so much in this context as in that of the changes in our own agricultural policy within this country, which would mean a figure much higher than I quoted.

Mr. John Hynd: Is the Prime Minister aware that his announcement will not only have overwhelming support on both sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said "overwhelming", not "unanimous"—but also throughout the Continent of Europe? Will he also note that many of us welcome the fact that on this occasion we have not had to wait until 10 years in the life of a Government have elapsed before a positive step was made, as we did in the case of the last Conservative Administration?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I am not going to make any contrast between this operation and what happened four or five years ago. There were difficulties then which do not exist now; there are difficulties now which did not exist then. The right hon. Member for Bexley faced great difficulties, and no one said that sooner than I did when negotiations broke down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My words are on the record, indicating the sympathy that I expressed to the right hon. Gentleman at that time.
The facts are—and this is why it would be wrong for me to go into too much detail about the problems—that the previous Conservative Government made their effort in their way. We intend to make our approach in our way, and we only hope that, as a result of it, we shall get the answers that most of us want.

Mr. Grimond: May we take it from the Prime Minister's statement that the Government are now agreed that if we are to enter E.E.C. we have to accept the Treaty of Rome as it stands and the basic principles of the agricultural policy, so that price levels may be altered? Secondly, while I appreciate that he may not be in a position to tell the House in detail what are the essential interests to be safeguarded, may I ask whether he will agree that, when a debate takes place, he must give us more information about the essential interests of ourselves and the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I shall have to see if I can give the same information at greater length, to satisfy him. The right hon. Gentleman will have great justification in claiming that his party was in favour of this long before any other. He can, and I know that he will.
But I do not think that he is constituted to negotiate on behalf of Europe, any more than the right hon. Member for Bexley is. Our difficulties in these very tough talks will be greater if I am pressed to give away every point in negotiation in the House before we get there. That is why I do not intend to say anything further about the agricultural policy, the problem and size of which we all know.
On the Treaty of Rome, it is important to give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman, if he will bear with me. We all recognise the importance of the attitude of the Government to the Treaty of Rome itself. The Government take the view that, while there are anxieties on the point, the Treaty of Rome is not in itself or necessarily an impediment. There are anxieties, as I have said, but the Treaty need not be an obstacle if our problems can be dealt with satisfactorily, whether through adaptations of the arrangements made under the Treaty or in any other acceptable manner.
Perhaps I might summarise this important point by saying that the Government would be prepared to accept the Treaty of Rome, subject to the necessary adjustments consequent upon the accession of a new member and provided that we receive satisfaction on the points about which we see difficulty.

Mr. Shinwell: Before embarking on this perilous adventure, about which many of us have strong reservations, may I ask my right hon. Friend, not on a point of detail, but on a point of vital principle, whether, when he is engaged in these high-level talks with high political dignitaries on the Continent, he will make it clear beyond peradventure that this country, whatever economic arrangements may be sought and applied in our relations with E.E.C, will not agree to the creation of a European Parliament and a supranational Government?

The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend has many anxieties about what he calls this perilous adventure. I have made plain that when these discussions have taken place we shall be in a position to know whether the conditions appear to be there to enable us to start negotiations for entry, or whether they do not.
With regard to the question which my right hon. Friend wants made clear, the


Government regard these as discussions about the coverage of the Treaty of Rome, the economic association within Europe at present of the Six, and it may be of the eight, or ten, or twelve, depending on how many other countries join. I ought to mention, with regard to the position of E.F.T.A., that Ireland will have a close interest in this, and that we are in close touch with the Irish Government about it.
I do not think that we have ever contemplated, and I do not think, although we never got a very clear answer on this, that the previous Government ever contemplated, that discussions about E.E.C. meant a European Parliament or a supranational authority dealing with matters of politics, foreign affairs, or defence. This is not what we are talking about, and there is no provision for any of these things in the Treaty of Rome.

Sir J. Eden: Can the Prime Minister say what is the timetable which he foreshadows both for the exploratory talks and for the subsequent negotiations?

The Prime Minister: We are in discussion at present with E.F.T.A. about the conference of Heads of Government of E.F.T.A. countries, which I hope will take place in a few weeks' time, and my right hon. Friend and I hope, either before the end of this year or early next year, to start on this series of discussions in the European capitals to which I have referred.
One further advantage of these talks at this time—I am thinking of December, January, or February—is that they will enable my right hon. Friend and I to stress with the Heads of Government with whom we are dealing the vital importance of being forthcoming on the Kennedy Round, to which we all attach importance. The attitude of many people in this country towards the E.E.C. will depend to a considerable extent on the degree to which the E.E.C. proves itself outward-looking by a forthcoming attitude on the Kennedy Round. As to the negotiations, there has been no decision and there cannot be until the talks have been held.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does my right hon. Friend really consider that British interests, that is, the interests of the people as a whole, will be safeguarded

if this means an increase in food prices of between 10 and 15 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: I have said that there are important problems, and I indicated that this was one. There are important problems coming under the heading of what we have called essential British and Commonwealth interests, but I do not think that it would be helpful to go into detail on any of the particular issues which we shall be discussing.

Mr. Sandys: While I would have liked the Prime Minister's statement to have gone a little further, may I join others in warmly welcoming the much more positive tone of his important statement which I think, on the whole, will be well received by our friends on the Continent? May I ask him whether he recognises, now that these special high-level talks are starting, the importance of maintaining the speed and the momentum?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I think that the importance of the statement which I have made this afternoon lies not in any declaration. It would have been possible to have made a simple declaration, a form of words. I think that the words used by the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his statement contain the key, namely, momentum. We are providing for action and movement towards seeing whether we can get the right terms to go into the Common Market. If we cannot, that will be a different situation, but we shall hope to find that we can. My right hon. Friends and I fully recognise the need to maintain the momentum. We intend to start at—I was going to say at a hell of a pace, but that would have been out of order—but I agree about the necessity to maintain the momentum.

Mr. Anderson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's long-awaited and positive statement, but why will he not couple this with a declaration of political intent, to offset the fears of those who imagine that we shall be more de Gaullist than de Gaulle when in the Community, and to prevent the emergence of an irresponsible Executive?

The Prime Minister: I was not sure what kind of declaration of intent my hon. Friend wanted. I do not believe


that our purpose will be served by playing politics as between one member of the Six and another or others. With regard to political conditions, I think that I have dealt with them in my reference to the Treaty of Rome. I do not believe that these discussions involve anything further, whether in defence or supra-nationality, than I have said.

Mr. Godber: Does the Prime Minister realise that the answer he gave the Leader of the Liberal Party has left the agricultural position very much in the air? Agriculturists in this country will be concerned, and will wish to know as soon as possible precisely where they stand. We realise the difficulty, but will the Prime Minister say where he stands in relation to this, particularly after the things said by himself and others at the General Election?
If I might take the right hon. Gentleman up on the point about increased food prices, he said that the answers given by the Minister of Agriculture related to our policy and not that of E.E.C. I think that the right hon. Gentleman got his figures the wrong way round.

The Prime Minister: I was basing myself on something said during the election by the Minister of Agriculture. I have never sought to disguise our anxiety about agricultural policy and I do not see why I should today. The agricultural problem with the E.E.C. arises from two factors. First, the effect on British agriculture, though many experts consider that British agriculture will be very prosperous under these conditions—sections of it at any rate, other sections would not. We might be prosperous producing the wrong things, too much starch and not enough protein, but there is a lot of argument about that. I think that the problem of excess production of cereals in this country, and beef, has been accepted as one of the implications of the present price level—and I emphasise the present price level—of the Common Market, because this price level may not continue in that form.
The other anxiety about agriculture—and this has been the position all along—is the serious effect not even primarily on the cost of living or on the balance of payments, but on the fact that these high levies would be placed on the importation of every ton of Canadian or

Australian wheat into this country, and we should be paying higher world prices in those circumstances.
I think that we fully discussed the special problem of New Zealand when we last debated these things. It was recognised by everyone in the House. That is a very obvious one, but other anxieties have risen since then about these levies, and this is a big problem about agriculture. I am not sure that I would carry things further by expatiating at further length on it.

Mr. Bellenger: While warmly congratulating my right hon. Friend on taking the enlightened attitude which he has now taken, may I ask him whether he recognises that the House will want considerable information, and not only one debate? Will he also recollect that when the previous negotiations were taking place the House was, on the whole, one must admit, kept fully informed as to the general direction of those negotiations? Will my right hon. Friend guarantee to give at least the same volume of information, and, if necessary, not to limit the debate in this House to one occasion?

The Prime Minister: It is the case that during the negotiations in 1961–63, whenever the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley returned from Brussels, the House received full and detailed information on what he had been doing, sometimes so detailed that the right hon. Gentleman will remember some of the gibes about certain of the commodities with which he was dealing, but we expressed our thanks to him at that time. What we are doing now is not entering into negotiations in the sense of applying to enter and then going to Brussels. These are discussions with Heads of Government. It might have been better if the previous Government had operated on this basis—it is arguable—at a critical time in the discussions. We shall give the House as much information as we can, but I do not guarantee that we shall be able to do everything that the right hon. Gentleman did in the pre-negotiations period.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order. I should like to point out that of the 16 Members that you called, Mr. Speaker, to ask supplementary questions on this important statement, 15 supported the


Government's policy and only one opposed it.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Member will acquit me of any desire to select speakers on one side rather than another. What the Chair tried to do was to get a cross-section of the House. If he failed to do so it was by accident and not design.

Mr. Shinwell: Since my hon. Friend has referred to the ratio of 15 to 1, and I am the one in the minority, I should like to say that I will take on all 15 myself, at any time.

Mr. Jennings: I hestitate to raise this further point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I am worried and perturbed at the fact that, particularly on this side of the House, no expression of opinion contrary to the general trend was heard, and that the bulk of the speakers from this side were either Front Bench speakers or Privy Councillors. This question worries me.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's anxiety is the exact parallel of that expressed, from a different point of view, by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). May I assure the House that I attempt to distribute my favours between Privy Councillors and back benchers as fairly as I can, and if I lean at all it is against Privy Councillors?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 14TH NOVEMBER—A debate on Trade and Industry in Wales, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment.

Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill [Lords,] which is a consolidation Measure.

TUESDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the London Government Bill.

Motion on the Redundancy Fund Contributions Order.

WEDNESDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: Committee, when there will be a debate on an Opposition Motion on the Government's Attitude to the Free Enterprise System.

Remaining stages of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill [Lords.]

THURSDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the First Report from the Select Committee on Broadcasting &c, of Proceedings in the House of Commons.

FRIDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Annual Report and Accounts, 1965, of the British Waterways Board.

MONDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER—The proposed business will be: Supply [4th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Mr. Heath: May I ask three questions? First, on this afternoon's business, is the view of the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Commonwealth Secretary still that which he expressed to the House last Thursday, that it would not be in the general interest to have a debate on the Rhodesia Order this afternoon, and that it should wait until the Government have had time to consider Mr. Smith's reply and come to their decision on it, when we shall have the debate that he has promised us?
Secondly, can he say whether the Committee stage of the London Government Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House?
Thirdly, on Thursday's debate on the televising of the House of Commons, is the Leader of the House aware that the Whips will not be on on this side of the House and that there will be a free vote, as there will be in the debate on procedure? Can he give us a similar assurance in respect of the Government side?

Mr. Crossman: On today's deliberations, our view is that it would be far better to wait for Mr. Smith's reply and the Government's considerations to be published before we debate Rhodesia. Having waited, we are determined to have a full debate on it. I hope that hon. Members will agree to this, although individual Members can do what they like.
On the London Government Bill, I know the right hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter and I shall certainly take it into account in considering where the Committee stage should take place.

On the question of television, the answer is "Yes". There will be a free vote on our side as well.

As regards procedure, I have nothing to add to what I said last week.

Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to arrange for a debate within the next few days on the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon, so that the House will not be placed in a position in which it has an opportunity to debate this matter only at a stage when it has ceased to have the immediate impact that it had this afternoon? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that it will be far less important to stick to the business for next week than to have this debate within the next seven days?

Mr. Crossman: The views of the Government on this matter are the same as those of my hon. Friend. If it is the wish of the House—and my right hon. Friend made this quite clear—to alter the business for next week and have a debate on this subject we shall certainly consider it through the usual channels.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In view of the special nature of Thursday's business, and the fact that there is, over the greater part of it, a free vote on both sides of the House, will the Leader of the House make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power so that Standing Committee D, on that Thursday afternoon, does not begin sitting at four o'clock, thus depriving hon. Members on both sides of the chance of listening to or taking part in a debate on a House of Commons matter?

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject, which he shares with me. I shall talk to my right hon. Friend about it.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend provide the time which is urgently needed for a full day's debate on the motor industry, in view of the developing chaos, which has now spread to Coventry?

Mr. Crossman: I know the interest of my hon. Friend in this matter, which he

shares with me. This is a very big subject. I cannot give him any assurance on its being debated next week.

Mr. John Wells: In connection with Friday's business, will the Leader of the House so arrange the title of the debate that it will be in order to discuss the White Paper on Transport Policy as far as its waterways section goes, in addition to the annual report and accounts?

Mr. Crossman: I have to think about this very carefully. I am not sure whether I can give the hon. Member a precise answer. I should like to see him afterwards and discuss the question with him.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate the terrible disaster in Aberdeen—which is the subject of my Motion No. 252—as a result of which many workers were killed and families deprived?

[That this House is shocked by the recent collapse of the new building at the College of Technology in Aberdeen University, resulting in the loss of four lives and injuries to other persons; and is of opinion that the Government should set up a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, to ascertain the technical and other defects which led to the collapse, to hear technical and other evidence, and also counsel for the dependants to ascertain and award compensation to the dependants.]

Mr. Crossman: I am sure that the whole House agrees with the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's Motion. As for the second part, I suggest that we await the Answer to the Written Question which he has on the Order Paper today.

Mr. A. Royle: Is the Leader of the House aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies was second on the list for answering Questions this Tuesday, but that next Tuesday, 15th November, for some unknown reason, he goes to the bottom of the list? Is this because Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to have the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) answering for the Colonies?

Mr. Crossman: That is not the reason. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me advance notice of this question, because I have been able to get the right Answer. The answer is that the


Commonwealth Office and the Colonial Office go together, and simultaneously move from the top to the bottom. In one sense, they are now departmentally united.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House are disappointed at the absence of any reference to the Second Reading of the Leasehold Reform Bill? Is he aware of the promise given before the Recess that on the passing of the Land Commission Bill the Leasehold Reform Bill would follow soon after?

Mr. Crossman: I do not remember any precise promise that the Leasehold Reform Bill would follow immediately after the passing of the Land Commission Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that work on it is going on very satisfactorily and that it will come on; and that we shall carry it out in due course.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a debate at an early date on the state of the building industry? Certainly in my area, and I dare say in a number of others, morale in this industry is now at a new low and they would welcome a statement of the Government's intentions.

Mr. Crossman: I am always willing to consider a debate on anything. I shall consider this and see how much other demand there is for it in the House.

Mr. Wood: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), as the position at the moment is not very satisfactory? Questions for the Colonial Office go down after Questions to the Commonwealth Affairs Office and, therefore, in theory, might never be answered.

Mr. Crossman: I will look at this again. This is something which we can discuss through the usual channels. If it is for the convenience of hon. Members, we shall certainly discuss it.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will put down the Government Motion for Thursday on the Order Paper as soon as possible and not leave it until only the night before, so that we have no opportunity to consider it until the morning of the debate?

Mr. Crossman: Certainly. The Motion will go down as soon as possible.

Mr. Gilmour: The Government's White Paper on broadcasting seems to be receding rather than advancing. Would the right hon. Gentleman now tell us when, if ever, we may expect it?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I can add to the information which I have given and which my predecessor gave in previous weeks.

Mr. Steele: Would my right hon. Friend agree to consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about a discussion of the Government's White Paper on transport? Is he aware that we have had this Paper for some time and we have been promised legislation? I think that the House would want to discuss the implications of the White Paper before we were presented with a Bill.

Mr. Crossman: That is an interesting suggestion and we shall certainly consider it. We have a great deal to debate in the near future, and I can give no guarantee of a debate before we come to legislation, but, if there is a real demand in the House for it, we shall certainly consider it.

Mr. Lubbock: Reverting to the question of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Leader of the Opposition."]—Leader of the Conservative Opposition. He is not my leader.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that, having declared his political position, the hon. Member will now come to his business question.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that business should be arranged to suit the convenience of the House and not the convenience of the two Front Benches and that there is no constitutional validity whatsoever in any agreement arrived at between him and his opposite number of these benches to deprive hon. Members of their traditional right of free expression?

Mr. Crossman: That is a very unfair observation. No one is seeking to deprive any hon. Member of any right. Let us be clear about this. We have a situation


in which we have copied and published the reply from Rhodesia. It seems to some of us in the House common sense that we should wait to debate Rhodesia at the right time, but, if hon. Gentlemen insisted, I am the last person to say that they should be denied their rights. They may be unwisely abusing them.

Mr. C. Pannell: May I call my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 255?

[That this House deplores the conduct of the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale who, in Standing Committee D on 8th November, 1966, made a squalid personal attack, on the basis of only a newspaper report, on a right hon. Member who was not, and could not be, present, and refused to withdraw it even when categorically assured that the newspaper report was incorrect.]

This Motion refers to a personal attack in Standing Committee D. May we have a debate on it next week?

If I may address you now, Mr. Speaker, it is the well-considered practice of the House that, if any personal attack is made, the hon. Member who is the subject of it is usually given advance notice. The present situation arises because a Privy Councillor made an attack on another right hon. Member in a place in which he knew that the other right hon. Member could not answer. Therefore, this goes down to bedrock. We should have an opportunity of dealing with this rather reptilian episode——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not want arguments on merits at this stage, but business questions.

Mr. Crossman: On this Motion, I can understand the strong feelings about this personal attack. A considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members have put their names to the Motion and I would have thought that the simplest way to settle it would be for the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) to withdraw the remarks which he made.

Mr. Barber: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he were to be able to find time to debate this Motion, it would then be apparent to the House that I made no criticism——

Mr. Pannell: Yes.

Mr. Barber: —of the Colonial Secretary's honour or integrity——

Mr. Pannell: Yes.

Mr. Barber: —and that what I did was to criticise his ability, the lack of which, I believe, is self-evident?

Mr. Pannell: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate at business question time.

Mr. Mikardo: On the question which has just been raised, is my right hon. Friend aware that nobody who sat in Standing Committee D on Tuesday morning could have been in any doubt whatever that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) did constitute an attack going beyond—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into a debate on the merits. What hon. Gentlemen must do is press for a time for this to be debated. That is the object of business questions.

Mr. Crossman: Time for this matter has been pressed for now from both sides of the House, but I repeat—I say this after having heard the tone of voice in which the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale made his last remark—that this would all be ended if he would withdraw the imputation he made.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, last Friday, the Secretary of State for Scotland declared that it was not practicable to provide an estimate of the cost of the Selective Employment Tax in any particular area, whereas, on Monday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave precisely that information——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting away from the purpose of business questions. The hon. Gentleman knows what the object of business questions is. It is to ask for time to discuss something.

Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I will come immediately to my question.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement next week about the cost of the Selective Employment Tax in the Highlands, to dispel or remove the


belief that the cost of the tax will be £3 million—uncomfortably higher than the Government's original estimate of £2 million?

Mr. Crossman: I will not arrange that. It is for right hon. Gentlemen themselves to make statements and not for me to arrange them.

Mr. Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that there is quite a number of Questions on science on today's Order Paper? Would it be possible to have a debate on science before Christmas?

Mr. Crossman: I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are interested in this subject, but I do not think it likely that we shall find time for a special debate on science before Christmas.

Mr. Fitt: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 228, regarding the provision of an Ombudsman for Northern Ireland?

[That this House, while welcoming the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner, urge Her Majesty's Government to extend the powers of investigation of the Commissioner to those Ministries in Northern Ireland whose powers exist by reason of devolution under the Government of Ireland Acts 1920 to 1948.]

May I draw to his attention the fact that this Motion has been signed by over 100 hon. Members? As it is of such vital import to 1¼ million of Her Majesty's subjects in Northern Ireland, would he be prepared to give time to debate this very important Motion?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I will, as I gather that an Amendment in similar terms has now been tabled to the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill. We ought to see how that gets on in Standing Committee B.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about a future debate on Rhodesia, may I ask him whether we may have the assurance that Members on both sides will have an opportunity of expressing their views before there is any question of the Government making an approach on this question to the United Nations?

Mr. Crossman: This is becoming a regular weekly assurance. Certainly, there is no question. Yes, of course there will be a debate.

Mr. Rankin: On today's business, if it is accepted that Rhodesia will not encroach on the debate on Gibraltar, may we assume that the debate on Gibraltar will not encroach on the debate on aviation, which follows at 7 o'clock?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I should have thought that the arrangement by discussion through the usual channels would work throughout the afternoon.

Mr. Kirk: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a statement will be made about the future of the third London airport, as the long delay is causing great distress and anxiety in certain parts of my constituency?

Mr. Crossman: I suggest that the hon. Member puts that down as a Question.

Mr. Kirk: I have done.

Sir G. de Freitas: May I return to the question of a debate about the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made after Questions this afternoon? Even if the Opposition do not ask for it to be held next week, will the Government provide time for a debate on this very important matter?

Mr. Crossman: I have made this perfectly clear. I want to ascertain, first, the opinion of the House through the usual channels; and that means the opinion of both sides of the House. If there is a strong demand for a debate next week, then the Government are prepared to find their share of the time for it.

Mr. Iremonger: Concerning Motion No. 251, which is about the scandal of the Great London Council's land grab—

[That this House deplores the decision of the Greater London Council to resort to compulsory purchase for housing within the London borough of Bromley, and declares such arbitrary and dictatorial action to be contrary to the spirit of the London Government Act, and gross interference with the freedom of the locally elected borough council.]

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has studied my Amendment—

Line 4, at end add 'and furthermore recalls that the intention of this House was that the Greater London Council should get out of the housing business as quickly as possible; looks forward to the return of a Conservative majority in next year's elections which will give effect to that intention and thwart the Labour Party's plans to reduce the people of Greater London to the level of squalid serfdom which socialism invariably achieves in practice; meanwhile deplores the arrogance and bureaucratic ineptitude which this local authority inherited from the London County Council—as observed by the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London—which qualities are exemplified by its deplorable management of the Hainault estate in the constituency of the hon. Member for llford, North, and by its continuation of the London County Council's obnoxious practice of using its own employees to assess the compensation payable to private owners dispossessed of their homes through compulsory purchase instead of accepting the valuations fairly made by the independent district valuers, as is the common practice followed by other local authorities; and, finally, affirms that publicly subsidised and administered housing should be confined to supplying the needs of handicapped persons and that all other council property should be rapidly sold for private ownership'.

and give an assurance that he will give the House an opportunity to debate this septic syndrome?

Mr. Crossman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have studied the Amendment and have admired the in-flamatory terms in which it is drafted. The housing plans of the G.L.C. and boroughs are now being considered by a joint committee which will report and which might help to reduce the hon. Gentleman's temperature a little.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members believe that the Companies Bill is extremely important and that many of us are disappointed that it has had to go to the House of Lords to be dealt with before coming to the House of Commons?

Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that our debates on this Bill will not be inhibited in any way and that we shall have our full right to make additions to or changes in the Bill if that is desired by this House?

Mr. Crossman: I can give that assurance with complete confidence. Of course, this House will retain its right to discuss the Bill, wherever it is started. Where it has started is a matter of the convenience of the legislative programme.

Mr. Abse: Would my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made with the Sexual Offences Bill?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. As the Bill has now been passed twice in another place, and a strong expression of opinion on it has been shown in this House, we have decided to give half a day's time shortly before Christmas for the Bill.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), in view of the fact that the difficulties in the motor industry may soon have nation-wide implications?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot really reconsider saying that I will consider my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Leadbitter: Would my right hon. Friend look again at the question of the personal attack which took place in Standing Committee B in view of a certain incident which I observed in the House, namely, that the Leader of the Opposition indicated approval of the remarks of his right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This period is for business questions.

Mr. Leadbitter: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am requesting the Leader of the House, in view of what I observed, to say that, since the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) has not got the guts to withdraw—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is seeking to discuss the issue. The purpose of this exercise is to ask for time in which to debate an issue.

RHODESIA

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.—[Mr. Bowden.]

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I understand that an agreement—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Individual hon. Members have rights in this House. I must protect the right of an individual hon. Member to differ from the vast majority of hon. Members.

Mr. Thorpe: I understand that an agreement, albeit an unofficial one, has been reached between the two Front Benches—perhaps based on slightly varying motives—that this Order should be passed without debate and without discussion. Such an agreement is, of course, not binding on me nor indeed, I should have thought, on any other back bencher in any quarter of the House.
Lest references to this House are to become a mere formality, I suggest that the measure of importance of this Order is such that, whatever the differing views which hon. Members may hold on this issue, there is a duty on the House of Commons to express its views; for those who feel disquieted on this matter to express them and for those who have questions to ask to address them to the Government. Indeed, it is only right that that should be so, since whatever settlement is arrived at in Rhodesia, it will ultimately have to receive the assent of this House.
I am second to none in my concern for the future of Gibraltar, which is the subject that will follow the discussion of this Order. Be that as it may, the House of Commons is being asked to extend Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, the effect of which will be to continue in the hands of the Government the powers granted to them under that Act and automatically to extend for a further year the Orders in Council which, in the form of Statutory Instruments, were laid before this House.
As hon. Members will recall, those were powers granted to the Government to make Orders in Council varying or altering the Constitution of Rhodesia

and bringing in prohibitions, restrictions or obligations on Rhodesia and on people in this country, the chief effect of which has been the introduction of the various Orders dealing with sanctions. Hon. Members will also remember that included were measures relating to the Reserve Bank, general trade and specific products like chrome, petroleum, sugar, tobacco, iron ore and asbestos which have, I suggest, a considerable effect on trade in this country and on individual concerns. This is, therefore, no light matter to go through automatically.
It has been suggested that this is the wrong time to have a debate—I appreciate that suggestion and will try to answer it—because, we are told, although Mr. Smith's reply has been received, we are waiting for a decision by the Government to be published and that this may come at a very difficult moment.
However, there are matters which are cause for considerable disquiet. For example, it has been strongly suggested that one senior civil servant was very recently on the brink of resignation because of the extent of the concessions to the six principles which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to make in their negotiations in Salisbury.

Hon. Members: Who?

Mr. Thorpe: Hon. Members ask "who", but I do not think it is the practice to disclose the name of a civil servant.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Thorpe: It is not without significance that those who are connected closely by reason of their Ministerial positions—their Civil Service occupations in Ministries—should have expressed grave disquiet—[Interruption.] I should have thought that it is cause for concern when there is obviously evidence of disquiet expressed in certain quarters by a person who is in a position to know what is happening.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: When a number of my hon. Friends asked the hon. Member to say to whom he was referring, we asked the question because some of us were rather confused—in view of the statement referring to a Minister of Her Majesty's Government—because the hon. Gentleman referred to a civil servant.

Mr. Thorpe: I was coming to the second person in a moment. I was saying, initially, that the suggestion widely believed—and this would be an ideal opportunity for it to be denied—was that a high-ranking civil servant in the Commonwealth Relations Office had been gravely concerned at the extent of the concessions which Her Majesty's Government were making to the six principles and was on the brink of resignation.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is it not equally improper and out of order to refer to the opinions of a civil servant whether he be named or not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): No, it is not out of order.

Mr. Thorpe: Secondly, it is well known that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who is our Minister at the United Nations, is known to have expressed disquiet, and, indeed, the suggestion has been made that upon the occasion of his last visit to London he, in fact, tendered his resignation, but it was not accepted. I mention these two factors because I think they are an indication that there are people, closely concerned with current negotiations, who have cause for grave disquiet.
I believe that whatever may be the developments in the Rhodesian crisis, this Statutory Instrument, which will in effect renew the 1965 legislation, will be directly referrable to that Act. If the Government tell us that after six months of talks or negotiations—whether one is a realist and calls it the latter, or lives in a world of make believe and calls it the former—there is a chink of hope and that, therefore, some senior Minister of Her Majesty's Government will again be dispatched—possibly with his visit prefaced by the humiliating request that he should be received by Mr. Smith when it is convenient for Mr. Smith to see him—any constitutional settlement that might be brought about would clearly be introduced by reason of an Order in Council, which would take the form of a Statutory Instrument laid before the House, which would be passed by reason of the powers in the 1965 Rhodesia Act.
Therefore, if that is to be the outcome, clearly this Act would be relevant in that context. My own view is that it is very unlikely, after six months, that there will

be such a change of heart on the part of Mr. Smith to make this the case. If it were the case, the House would, I suggest, at that stage be under certain inhibitions in discussing the matter, far more than we are at this moment, because for the whole of the past six months the House has been told, "Let us not discuss these matters because talks are proceeding". At the moment there are no talks proceeding. Mr. Smith's reply has been received and Her Majesty's Government will make their reply. It is not a bad thing if this House makes known its views before Her Majesty's Government finally send that reply back to Rhodesia.
If there is to be a reference to the United Nations for selective or mandatory sanctions pursuant to the agreement reached at the Commonwealth talks, they would not have legislative effect unless the agreement which we reached at the United Nations was contained in a Statutory Instrument laid before this House pursuant to the 1965 Act. So, whatever may be the outcome of the present negotiations, this Act and this Statutory Instrument are relevant to it.
What, very briefly, is the background to the Act and to the Statutory Instrument? The Act itself had an unopposed Second and Third Reading and all the Statutory Instruments, with one exception, were passed without a division. The only exception was the Petroleum Order of 22nd January, 1966, when—I cannot interpret, but appearances would suggest that the Conservative Opposition felt that the arguments were sufficiently evenly balanced between those who were for, those who were against, and those who did not know—they divided in three ways. Apart from that, there has been, both on the introduction of this Act and on the Statutory Instruments, unity in this House.
I would suggest that we are entitled today to ask three questions: First, what were the conditions and the principles involved at the time which brought about this unity of purpose in the House, and do those conditions and principles still obtain? Secondly, what use have the Government made of those powers granted, and have they achieved the desired objective? Thirdly, what use do they propose to make of those powers if they are granted for a further period of a year?
I do not believe it fruitful to go into the history of the parentage of this Bill. We all know that when the Second Reading was debated it was against the background of a situation in which the Rhodesians had previously been moving with assured advancement for the 4 million Africans, with safeguards and undoubted rights for Europeans, under the 1961 Constitution, negotiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)—a Constitution which was generally accepted.
Some felt it did not go far enough, but I think that not even the Rhodesian Front in their wildest moments would regard the two right hon. Gentlemen as the standard bearers of black nationalism. It was that Constitution upon which the request was made for independence, and there is no question that two successive Prime Ministers in Rhodesia were told that there could not be independence on that Constitution because it was a more restrictive franchise than that of any other territory which had acquired independence in the last 50 years.
That was the view which, quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham expressed on 22nd February, 1964, to Mr. Winston Field, the then Rhodesian Prime Minister, and which was repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire when he was Prime Minister, to Mr. Smith, who was by then Prime Minister of Rhodesia. With that very proper attitude of the right hon. Gentlemen, I wholeheartedly agree, as I believe does the whole House.
The House was united because there had been agreement on the 1961 Constitution. There was agreement that it could not be the basis for independence, and there was agreement that when the Constitution was torn up it was an illegal act and was an act of rebellion. It was not only the view of this side of the House and of the Government benches, but it was also the view expressed in all parts of the House, and, perhaps more eloquently than most, by the Leader of the Opposition himself.
Therefore, I ask the question whether or not the conditions—either the political

conditions in Rhodesia or the constitutional principles involved today—are any different from what they were when this House, in a spirit of unity, passed this Bill and passed the Statutory Instrument.
In my submission, it is hardly surprising that the Rhodesian régime still faces the united opposition of the Churches in Rhodesia and of courageous public opinion in Rhodesia in the light of the powers of restriction and detention, in the light of the unilateral amendment of the 1961 Constitution, the closing of African primary schools because they happened to be in European quarters, in view of censorship and many other aspects of Rhodesian society with which this House is well familiar.
Therefore, I would hope that there is no hon. or right hon. Gentleman who would think that those conditions and principles have in any way altered from the attitude which the House adopted one year ago. I hope that we shall on this Order be able to show a spirit of unity—not brought about by silence from a stifled debate, but after free discussion when doubts and anxieties have been properly aired—and that the House will move to a decision, I hope, in a united spirit.
I believe, also, that the House agreed to a course of sanctions for two reasons. The first was that we recognised our continuing responsibility for all races in Rhodesia—something which Mr. Smith himself, in a very remarkable speech which is reported in The Guardian today, appears to accept is the continuing responsibility of Britain. The second reason was that, if I may coin a phrase, we felt that we had obligations to our kith and kin living in black African countries surrounding Rhodesia, where attempts are being made to build up non-racial societies, and because we believed, as a nation that had created a multi-racial Commonwealth, that Rhodesia's action was something which we could not tolerate.
I believe that this was the bloodless method of bringing pressure to bear on that régime. I do not say that it is a method which excluded the use of force, because on 9th April last Her Majesty's Government went to the Security Council


and were granted by that Council the right to use force in certain circumstances—
to prevent by the use of force if necessary, the arrival at Beira of vessels reasonably believed to be carrying oil…
and, if necessary, to arrest and detain the tanker "Joanna". So sanctions were supported as a bloodless method, but not necessarily a method excluding the use of force in the sense referred to in the Security Council Resolution.
That is, the background. I suggest to the House that none of these principles and none of these objectives has been changed by the course of events in Rhodesia in the last year.
Have those objectives been achieved? Have sanctions had the desired effect? I think that the Prime Minister himself would be the first to admit that the Government's calculations were completely wrong.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Miles out.

Mr. Thorpe: As the hon. Gentleman says, miles out.
This was recognised in the communiqué after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It was weeks, not months. It may now be months, not years. The Prime Minister may even have reached the stage of years, not decades. At any rate, there is no question but that the Government were hopelessly out in their timing on these sanctions.
What have these sanctions achieved? First, economically there is no doubt that they have had an effect in regard to tobacco. Only 30 per cent. of Rhodesia's tobacco has been resold, to the best of one's knowledge. [Interruption.] There is censorship in Rhodesia and it is, therefore, difficult to ge information on these matters. The hon. Gentleman may have better information than I have. No doubt he will correct me or inform the House if I am wrong.
The evidence would appear to suggest that approximately £6 million worth of tobacco has been bought by merchants from France, Germany, Portugal, Korea, Holland, China and Czechoslovakia and that South Africa has bought approximately £5½ million worth with the reserves which she holds in the Bank of Rhodesia in South Africa, making a total of £11,600,000 worth of sales.
It is also true that tobacco farmers have received two additional payments for their crops, but that has come out of the reserve of £28 million which the Rhodesia Government, as they then were, had reserved for the payment of loan and service charges but which the régime have now said they are no longer under an obligation to pay and which clearly the Government had not taken into account in their initial contingency plan. Further, a store has been built at Belvedere, on the old Salisbury Airport, where there is extensive stocking of unsold tobacco. Indeed, that building is at present being expanded.
We are entitled to ask what has been the effect of these Statutory Instruments before we renew them. That is why I am touching in some detail on the various products affected.
The main purchaser of sugar has been South Africa, partly because of the failure of its own crop. With regard to flour and wheat, I regret to say that there is a British company here which has milling interests in Rhodesia, and the latter Rhodesian-based company has used its London firm, albeit indirectly, as buying agents for Rhodesian wheat. The Government now have details of this and no doubt the matter is being looked into.
There is asbestos in this country which has been identified by experts as being of Rhodesia origin. It is true that this could perhaps be old stock, or it might have been bought in good faith from a European supplier. At any rate, there are matters which the Government might care to look into there.
Much chrome has gone to the United States. As the House knows, oil continues to flow into Rhodesia from South Africa and Lourenco Marques. The major source of supply is by rail from Lourenco Marques across the Malvernia Desert.
Therefore, it is clear that on the economic effects of sanctions the Government's contingency planning has been most inadequate in the last year, and, clearly, the diplomatic initiatives they have taken have not produced the desired results.
One casualty of sanctions has clearly been the effect they have had on Zambia's economy. With some justification, Zambia holds Britain economically and


politically responsible for any cost to it of resisting sanctions. I believe that, although this is a British economic responsibility, it is also a world one. It is regrettable that some countries which have been most vocal in calling on Britain to bring down the Smith régime have not been among those who have come forward to any great degree to assist Zambia in her troubles.
One of the effects is that Zambia, because of this inadequate economic backing, has to buy many of her products from Rhodesia. Rhodesia demands payments in dollars. Those dollars are drawn out of the sterling pool. Therefore, the sterling pool, ironically, is the major supplier of hard currency to the Rhodesian economy.
We should realise that, unless adequate economic assistance is given to Zambia to resist sanctions, not only will the policy of sanctions fail, but Zambia's economy itself may falter, if not fail, as well. The bitterness which that will produce could well have grave economic consequences. It is no secret that there are those in Zambia who are suggesting that, when the long-term buying contracts for copper expire, there are European countries which have offered to buy the whole of Zambia's production. In such an event, instead of buying direct at favourable rates, this country, which imports 700,000 tons of copper a year, would have to purchase copper from European middlemen at greatly inflated prices, an operation which, I suggest, would have a devastating effect on our economy.
As regards the political and economic effects of sanctions, I believe that the whole House must honestly agree that they have not had the hoped-for results. I never believed that they would have results until at any rate 18 months. Even that may be too optimistic a view to take.
Then the alternative arises which, I suggest, is relevant to the discussion of the Order, because it is under the powers granted by the Act which we are to continue for a further year that we shall have to act. There is the suggestion that we should go to the United Nations and that we should have mandatory sanctions, either selective or comprehensive.
My first comment is this. If the Government ask us to vote for this Statutory Instrument and if they intend, by extend-

ing the life of the Act, to continue and escalate sanctions, I beseech them to do better and more effective planning than they have done in the past year. It would be much better to have no sanctions at all than to go through the panoply of voting for sanctions only to have them fail and for the failure to be not only the humiliation of this country, but of the whole of the United Nations as well.
Secondly, if the Conservative Opposition believe, as they did, and as I think they still do basically, that this is an illegal régime which is harming multi-racialism all over the world, and if they intend to give their support to the Order, as I hope they will, they should be under no illusions as to what it can, and possibly will, lead to. It may well lead to mandatory sanctions under the United Nations. For reasons which I shall state in a few minutes, I hope that it will, because I believe that this is the only bloodless way of bringing the rebellion to an end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bombing?] I shall come to that.
The Conservative Opposition, when they vote, as I hope they will, to support this Measure must do so only on the basis that they are prepared to make effective what they are voting for, that they will not vote for a Measure in order to give the appearance of unity and thereafter renege from the ultimate logical conclusion of what they are voting for—voting, for example, for sanctions provided that they are not effective, or voting for international action provided that it does not involve one in taking effective action. Just as it would be much better that the Government did not ask us to vote for something which would be ineffective, so it would be wrong for the Conservative Opposition to vote for something which they were not genuinely prepared to back.
I believe that sanctions could work, but they are a long shot. The only alternatives to sanctions are these. We could wash our hands of the whole business, saying, "This is the last chapter in our imperial history. We gave independence to 700 million people all over the world, in every continent, but we were faced with a rebellion by 200,000 people and it was beyond our capacity to deal with it." That could be one alternative. The other could be a bloody and not necessarily successful deployment of troops—not less


than three divisions—which, I believe, would be not only morally wrong but logistically disastrous.
Therefore, we may under this Act have to introduce Statutory Instruments which will give legislative effect to the determination of this country to bring in either selective or comprehensive mandatory sanctions. Basically, this course could be made effective by action taken by member Governments at source, under a licensing system, perhaps, such as we exercised during the war and such as has been exercised by the oil exporting countries since U.D.I. But one must not set upon a course like this without having the intellectual honesty to ask how far ultimately one is prepared to take it. Are we going into something, and shall we then wash our hands of it? I would much rather not be set on that course. I would much rather look at something and take it through to its logical conclusion or not go in for it at all. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has made enough sedentary interruptions already to last him a lifetime.
Supposing that South Africa and Portugal were not prepared to abide by mandatory sanctions and would breach them, I would say straight away, first in regard to South Africa, that, although I profoundly disagree with almost all her Government's policies, they have a clean record on abiding strictly by the letter of international law. I do not think that one can point to any legal decision or obligation put upon them which they have breached. I may be wrong, but I believe that to be so. [An HON. MEMBER: "South-West Africa?"] This is an arguable case because the decision there was not the decision of the International Court but of the United Nations. South Africa is claiming that this constitutes internal interference which is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. It will be for the World Court to decide whether or not that contention is right. I think that that is the legal position, however much I want to see South-West Africa liberated.
Before hon. Members vote for this Statutory Instrument, they must ask themselves these questions. It is no good voting in the dark. Supposing that South Africa and Portugal, for example, were to breach international sanctions, what

then? We might then find a move for a right to search on the high seas such as was exercised during the war against ships carrying goods to neutral ports which were reasonably believed to be carrying contraband. I believe that, if it were felt that goods were being despatched to defaulting nations which would then re-export them to Rhodesia, the world might ask for a right to search.
Now, if only to clear the record for myself and to satisfy the Tory Party, which appears to have some interest in the matter, I come to another alternative. I have been wildly misrepresented on it, but I do not complain about that because it is a customary part of politics. Supposing that the main breach in sanctions, the main obstacle to bringing about a settlement by reason of economic pressures, were the continued flow of oil into Rhodesia, and supposing that the main source travelled along a railway line passing for several hunderd miles through a totally deserted malaria-infested desert——

Mr. Duncan Sandys: What?

Mr. Thorpe: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would like to live out there. I am sure that he would be very welcome, but he would find that his nearest neighbours were about 400 miles away in Gonakudzingwa detention camp where there are men detained for up to five years without trial and without charge, many of whose relatives do not know that they are there because it is a criminal offence to publish the fact in the newspapers.
If the continued flow of oil and the only, or main, obstacle to the efficacy of sanctions were the continued supply of oil along that railway route, would it seriously be said that the preservation of that railway route was more important than the bloodless settlement of the whole Rhodesian crisis?

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the hon. Gentleman consider that the bombing of that line would be an act of war?

Mr. Thorpe: No, I would not, and I hope that I can persuade the hon. and learned Gentleman, by reference to legal principles known to him, that it would


be very much the reverse. We are dealing with a rebellion in Rhodesia. Lest there be any doubt on that score, let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that his own leader—[An HON. MEMBER: "Which one?"—his official leader—said on 12th November, 1965:
We recognise that it is an illegal Government and that the Government of this country can have no dealings with it. We do not in any way condone its actions and neither must the Governor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 539.]
We are talking about an act of rebellion in a British Colony. Was it an act of war to put in troops to put down Mau-Mau? Of course not. Was it an act of war to put in troops in many parts of the world to put down civil disorder? Of course not.
But I am not suggesting that we go that far. I am merely suggesting—I do not want to put it out of its context, and I mention it only because I have been misquoted on it—that if, ultimately, the only obstacle to the effectiveness of sanctions were the supply of oil to which I have referred and the means to make sanctions effective in bloodlessly ending the rebellion were the destruction of that one railway line, which is at present carrying oil into Rhodesia, this would be not too high a price to pay, and certainly it would not involve Britain in what many hon. and right hon. Members are rightly frightened of, an economic confrontation with South Africa and, to a lesser extent, with Portugal as well.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something in order to clear our minds? Are we to bomb Botswana or Rhodesia? Has he had any experience of repairing railway lines after bombing? If he has had, he will know that it would be necessary to keep on bombing.

Mr. Thorpe: I am not quite certain how it is suggested that Botswana might be bombed when it has never been mentioned in the debate. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it would be possible for us to make political representations to Botswana when mandatory sanctions were introduced, asking her to cease supplying Rhodesia from existing railway lines, the answer would be, "Yes". Botswana is a member of the United Nations and if a resolution were passed would be bound

by it. Thus, the answer to the question of whether we should bomb Botswana is, "No".
Secondly, it is true that railway lines can be repaired but we are talking of a railway line which is several hundred miles long in an extremely isolated area. I believe also that nothing would prove more forcibly to the South African Government that, whilst we were not anxious to have an economic confrontation with them which would damage the trading relations of both nations, we were determined to end the rebellion in Rhodesia. It is because South Africa was not convinced of this country's determination from the very beginning that she gave so much support to Rhodesia. It was in the initial few weeks that South African support of Rhodesia made the difference between success and failure.
I believe that we shall have to have mandatory sanctions and that they are the only bloodless way of bringing down the Smith régime. If hon. Members do not want to bring down the Smith régime, logically they will not vote for this Statutory Instrument.

Mr. John Biffen: As the hon. Gentleman is so anxious that we should think this through logically, and as we understand that he believes that the centrepiece of British policy must be the overthrow of the Smith Government, does he recommend, in logic, that if the economic sanctions fail military action should follow?

Mr. Thorpe: I thought that I had made it clear that I do not believe that the deployment of military force in Rhodesia is practical or desirable. The Minister of State, Foreign Office, who I am glad to see here, said at the Labour Party conference—and I agree—that, in the early stages, a token force might have done the trick. I believe that if there had been British troops in Zambia before U.D.I, was declared it might never have happened. I accept the logic of the situation that, unless sanctions succeed, and if we discount the use of force, this country fails. I believe that it would be the most appalling humiliation and tragedy if we did, and I believe this because Britain has such a long and honourable tradition of building up a non-racial Commonwealth.
That is why I believe that when the right hon. Members for Kinross and West Perthshire and Streatham negotiated the 1961 Constitution, which safeguarded the rights of Europeans but still recognised the political rights of 4 million Africans, the great tragedy was that it was ripped up because those in power in Rhodesia were not prepared to accept the doctrine of racial partnership, although they were not being asked to accept African majority rule overnight but the inevitability of an increased share by Africans in government.
We have a choice. Do we perpetuate the régime backed by many of the 200,000 Europeans, forgetting the responsibilities which we have for the 4 million Africans and doing so at the cost of the 150,000 Europeans at present living in Black African Commonwealth countries around Rhodesia—already we see the pressures that have been put on them in Zambia, which are very wrong—and thus give up any idea of developing a multi-racial Commonwealth?
The second choice is whether, having enunciated the principles we did last year—that this is a rebellion, an unnecessary rebellion and cuts at the roots of every racial policy this country has tried to introduce—this House shows, on the eve of the first anniversary of U.D.I.—and let us hope it is the last—that we have resolution, that we are united, that we have the determination and that therefore this Statutory Instrument will be passed without a Division.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I congratulate the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on at least one thing—that he has rejected the Front Bench argument that it is only proper for this House to discuss a matter after the decision has been taken. That always seems to me to be a case of closing the door after the horse has been stolen and it is one that I am not prepared to concede. But—again to take things a little out of sequence—I want to say a word or two about his military arguments. The hon. Gentleman might have been interested in a research project carried out by the Rand Institute on the cost effectiveness of various operations of war. At the bottom of the list came, "Bombing Railways". According to its

calculations, it costs 1,200 times as much to make a hole as to fill it up.
I give another figure, because the most astonishing nonsense has been talked on this subject. We recently had fighter planes in Zambia. We supplied them from the nearest effective and available railhead and it had to be done by Britannia aircraft. The round trip by a Britannia used 6,000 gallons of petrol and it carried 4,500 gallons for the fighters. That amount of petrol keeps a modern fighter in the air for 50 minutes. That is the kind of logistic problem which one is faced with in supporting military force. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be a three-division job. It would certainly be a minimum of two divisions. We have not the logistic capacity to support a thin brigade on the Zambesi for an operation and the Secretary of State knows that very well.
The final folly of all is the idea that we are going to take on South Africa. This reminds me of an incident which occurred to me in April, 1942. I had been working continuously for 50 hours with what landing craft we then possessed to land an unarmoured division on an undefended shore. When I got back, I received a telegram from the Haldane Society—a society of Socialist lawyers—urging me to "open the second front now". Perhaps I can point out to those who think in these sorts of terms that it took the industry of Britain and America over two years before we could cross with absolute air superiority 80 miles of sea, and even then it was a near thing. South Africa can mobilise a great deal more than Rommel had in Normandy and is 6,000 miles away.
Having listened to some of the absurd military arguments here, I want to draw up a balance sheet of what we have done and what we are being asked to authorise. The cost to our balance of payments is already £100 million and, if sanctions are continued for another year, it would be taking a very optimistic view of copper futures to imagine that it would cost us less than another £200 million next year.
What are we getting for it? My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) put it very well at Question Time on Tuesday. He said that Mr. Smith was stronger than he was a


year ago and that sanctions were completely discredited. I am bound to say that I agree with him. I do not say that sanctions have had no effect, but they have probably had the opposite effect to that intended. Certainly they have made Rhodesia far more of a nation. They have had very much the same kind of effect in Rhodesia as the Arab war and the Arab sanctions had on Israel—they have made a group of immigrants into a very self-conscious nation.
Sanctions have undoubtedly arrested Rhodesian industrial development. When I was there recently I pointed that out when talking to Rhodesian Front members in the rural areas. I said that while they were obviously not having any shortages, developments which would otherwise be occurring had been stopped. I am afraid that the answer was, "And a bloody good thing, too! We have been developing much too fast. The last thing we want to see is the kind of get-rich-quick development which we have been experiencing".
That, of course, is the rural point of view. The Rhodesian Front is basically a rural party not in the least interested in the distress of business men in Bulawayo and Salisbury. They are interested in the countryside, and certainly the countryside of Rhodesia has never been so happy. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that applies to the black as well as to the white people.
Tomorrow there is an anniversary and in Rhodesia there will be great celebrations in all the tribal areas. There will be fireworks, and I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is apt to be featuring in a Guy Fawkes rôle. That is the atmosphere. There is no alternative Government in Rhodesia, and I think that everybody recognises that. There is almost no opposition, and here I am quoting black as well as white. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about detainees?"] There are 350 detained, probably the lowest figure for any country in Africa.

Mr. David Winnick: Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South)rose——

Mr. Paget: No. I am sorry. But I cannot give way.

Mr. Winnick: Why not?

Mr. Paget: I will give way in a moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will address the Chair.

Mr. Paget: There have been infiltrations into Rhodesia by guerrillas. There are two guerrilla camps in Zambia, each with a capacy of about 500. They have been passing people across the border into Rhodesia, but these guerrillas have received no support from the local population who have given immediate information to the police, which is why the guerrillas have totally failed.
For these reasons, it seems to me that, whether we like it or not, Mr. Smith is in fact ruling with the consent of almost all the people of Rhodesia.

Mr. Winnick: If the hon. and learned Gentleman believes that everyone is so happy in the rebel Colony, why has it been necessary for the Smith régime to institute the most vigorous form of Press censorship.

Mr. Paget: I do not support everything that it has done.

Mr. Winnick: Tell us what you do not support.

Mr. Paget: I do not think that it has been in the least necessary for the Smith régime to impose that Press censorship. I believe that it has been a silly thing to do. But to say that it is a rigorous Press censorship is nonsense.

Mr. Winnick: Rubbish.

Mr. Paget: It is not a rigorous Press censorship when a paper like the Rhodesia Herald is strongly hostile to the Government and is allowed to continue publication all the time and to publish blank columns to show what has been taken out. This is nowhere near as savage a censorship as happens behind the Iron Curtain, or in any other African country.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that Z.A.N.U. and Z.A.P.U., the two independence movements who speak for the black men in Rhodesia, have a totally different view about the guerrilla movements, the numbers killed and the extent of their support? I submit that my hon. and learned


Friend has been brainwashed in Salisbury into accepting the official statements of the Smith régime. The Africans themselves have quite a different tale.

Mr. Paget: There is no doubt that fantastic casualties inflicted by guerrilla forces, have been announced by Zambia for operations in the border areas, but anybody who goes into the countryside can see the absence of any need for people to concentrate at night and the absence of any defence measures on the farms. Right up in this area it can be seen that there is freedom from any serious kind of threat. These are simply propaganda stories from a movement which has entirely failed.
Obviously, there are no shortages in Rhodesia. She is getting all she wants. She has a favourable balance of trade which would make my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer very happy indeed. The Smith Government has been strengthened. All this has cost us so far about £100 million. We are now asked to continue.
What is the prospect for the future? What kind of difference to the picture will it make if sanctions are made mandatory? Germany is not a member of the United Nations, so they will not be affected by the sanctions one way or the other. South Africa, Portugal, Malawi and Botswana have all declared that they will not participate in mandatory sanctions. That is quite a good start. Zambia cannot do so, because her economy just cannot exist without Rhodesia. What difference will it make?
The key is obviously South Africa, and for that reason I went to South Africa to find precisely what the South African attitude to the Rhodesian rebellion was and what the South Africans would do. I think that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will probably be able to confirm what I say. I saw the South African Government and I saw the South African opposition. I had long talks with the Bank of South Africa and the Standard Bank. Although I did not see Mr. Oppenheim, who was in London, I saw two of his lieutenants, and I saw almost every leading figure on the Rand and discussed this situation with them. It was made abundantly clear to me that South Africa was completely determined that sanctions, least of all

United Nations sanctions, should not succeed in her part of Africa. It was for her own defence and that was the view taken.
What happens now? It is quite clear that without South Africa any attempt to blockade Rhodesia is completely futile. The example of oil has illustrated that, and Rhodesia's oil storage capacity is full. Of course, we could cut down Rhodes an exports. But there is only one point in that. The only point of stopping a country exporting is to put it in balance of payments difficulties; and that was the point on which I was consulting in South Africa.
None of the people in South Africa whom I met—I think that the right hon. Gentleman will probably confirm this—thought that sanctions were capable of putting Rhodesia into a balance of payments deficit. But, if they were wrong, there was no question whatever that they were completely determined to fill the deficit if it occurred, to provide the necessary money, and to make the advances on the stockpiles if those advances were required and the stockpiles could not be moved.
While I was sitting round one table, the maximum conceivable figure mentioned was £25 million. The view was, "Without bothering the Government we can provide that round this table". When the hon. Gentleman says that it is no use going on unless we are to succeed, I tell him that we cannot succeed. There is no possibility of succeeding. This is a futile continuation of something which cannot succeed.
Is South Africa bluffing? I am convinced that she is not. South Africa regards Rhodesia more or less as her Czechoslovakia. Whatever opinions one may have of him, Mr. Vorster is no Chamberlain or Daladier. He is a very tough cookie indeed, and very resolute. South Africa is a very difficult country to blockade. She has very few requirements. She has the cheapest coal in the world. Only one-tenth of her power requirements depend on oil. As to that, she is very conscious. She built up her storage facilities. She has bought tankers. She has put in two huge coal-conversion plants which I have seen. Furthermore, just to show how seriously this matter is taken, the whole of her petrol rationing coupons are already printed. I am assured


that by February they will have supplies to cover their ration coupons for three years, and that the coupons include the allocation to Rhodesia, which is 4 per cent. of the South African figure. So South Africa is not bluffing.
If we go in for a confrontation with South Africa, let us consider what it is. It is £220 million of exports. It is £90 million on balance of payments. It is probably not far short of £2,000 million in capital investment. What happens to the £ when the gold supplies are cut off?
What should one do? I do not see any point in proceeding with a policy in which one cannot win. I do not regard return to constitutionality as being very important. In the days when we were a great empire, perhaps we could afford to make an example of successful rebellion. But to whom is this an example? To Captain O'Neill, perhaps; but who else? In this case, return to constitutionality is nothing but a euphemism for face saving. I do not think that we should go to this kind of expense or do this sort of damage for what is simply a face-saving operation.
The kernel of the matter is this. We should concentrate on creating conditions which will bring the African majority in Rhodesia into power. That should be our aim, and that I believe we can achieve. I am no believer in paper constitutions. We have seen many of them in Africa, and none of them has lasted five years. The important thing is power relationships. That is what is effective. We did not give independence to India, Kenya, or Nigeria. We faced a power situation——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should address the Chair.

Mr. Paget: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In those cases, we faced a power situation in which it was no longer possible to rule except by the inhabitants of the country. That is the situation at which we must aim, and that is the only effective guarantee which we have. We have to create those conditions in Rhodesia.
The effective power in Rhodesia is the Rhodesian Front. The tribal African is not the power unit. Tribes are organisations, not to progress, but for the purpose

of staying still. While a tribe is effectively protected, it desires no more. It is not a political influence in Rhodesia. The migrant workers coming from Malawi and Zambia are not a political factor in Rhodesia. They are employed because the local African is, on the whole, too primitive for employment. The black power factor in Rhodesia is, and will be, the industrial labour force in the townships. As that force is built, so African power in Rhodesia is made inevitable.

Mr. Thorpe: I entirely agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the need for increasing African power. I am sure that he would agree that education is one of the best ways of doing it.

Mr. Paget: I am coming to that.

Mr. Thorpe: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider, when he comes to it, that Governments of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party made substantial offers of cash for increased African education, all of which were rejected? Many of the primary schools of Salisbury now stand empty.

Mr. Paget: I am extremely glad that I have a basis of agreement with the hon. Gentleman.
The only way to hold back the advance of the Africans is to hold back industrial development, and that is exactly what sanctions do.
What should we do about it? Let me say at once that this is not South Africa. In South Africa, the black urbanised worker is, and always will be, in the minority. In Rhodesia he is already near being in the majority. As the economy develops, Africans will become a very large majority. They will become the effective power. They will become a power which cannot be denied. I believe that only sanctions, by holding back development, can prevent that from happening.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend why the interesting progression to democracy which he outlines as being possible for Rhodesia has never happened in South Africa?

Mr. Paget: I thought that that was the point which I made. It is simply a


question of figures. The black African industrial labour force in South Africa, where the ratio of Africans in the total population is only three to one, has always been quite a small minority. In Rhodesia it will be a very large majority and it counts.
What ought one to do? I have had some very interesting discussions with Mr. Smith. The first proposal I put dealt with this educational point. Mr. Smith was very clear that he did not want African education simply to produce African voters who would become an unemployed intelligentsia. There was no question about that. What he said was very interesting, and what is possibly negotiable is this, which I urge upon my right hon. Friends, that Rhodesia and ourselves should jointly form an African educational agency, of which each country should supply half the money, which is about £6 million. That is very much less than the cost of sanctions. That agency should act independently of political control, with an agreed assignment, which should be to fit into an economic plan, which we also should work out together.
There would be a balance between technical education, academic education, and teaching and medicine skills would be placed to the requirements of the economy which was evolving, and which one was creating according to one's plans. The licences for new development and similar matters would involve undertakings as to employment, so that one would be able to guarantee the educated African, as he came forward, a job for an educated man in the economy which we would be creating.
All of this could be negotiated. I am not talking about African rule because I hope that would not happen. I hope that it would be multi-racial, but this would provide a majority of African voters in probably 10 or 12 years. This is a system which I feel could be negotiated.

Mr. John Lee: I am very interested in the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that this should be independent of political control. Could he now tell us how it can be guaranteed that Mr. Smith's régime would not interfere and tamper with its progress?

Mr. Paget: I can only say that things of this nature acquire an impetus of their

own. If one creates an agency and it receives payments from two Governments, and it takes over a job and reports to the Governments, then I think that it would acquire this impetus. It is no good dealing with anyone if one is to assume that the other person is acting in bad faith. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is every reason to believe that."] The Rhodesian Government make the same answer and one gets nowhere at all. This is why I feel a certain sense of frustration about this. I have such a tremendous feeling in my own heart that I could negotiate this if I were given the chance because, there is mutual agreement about this. [An HON. MEMBER: "By selling out."] This would be an advance on the sterile frustration of constitutional protocol, getting nowhere, taking us further to economic and political humiliation, a policy which, in our hearts, we know cannot succeed and which South Africa has no intention of allowing to succeed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. and learned Gentleman hopes it will not succeed."] So one drifts on. This seems to be the essence of futility and I hope that, the present course having led only to the strengthening of Mr. Smith and to the strengthening of the sort of Rhodesia which suits the Rhodesian Front, we shall now change course and try something more constructive.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: We on these benches recognise that the Rhodesian situation is now reaching a critical phase. Within a short time there will either be agreement or, in our view, an alternative which may lead to disaster for this country, Rhodesia and many other countries. We are profoundly concerned in every way to try to facilitate agreement. We believe that there should be an early and major debate—possibly a historic debate—in this House, but we do not believe that we can hold that debate until we have more facts before us.
We just do not know whether the chances now are for agreement or disagreement. One reads speculation in the newspapers, but one cannot rely upon it for a debate of this importance. We do not know what was contained in the proposals made by Mr. Smith to the British Government, nor do we yet know what attitude the British Government will take to these proposals.
We have clear and repeated undertakings from Ministers and the Leader of the House, that in a short time a White Paper will be published giving these facts and details. We have been assured that upon the publication of the White Paper there will be an immediate debate. This is a very clear assurance from the Government Front Bench which we accept. In those circumstances, we do not think that to debate this subject this afternoon would aid the cause that we all have at heart.
I would very much like to take issue with the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on some of the points that he has made. I would point out, in a sentence or two, what our position is on this matter. First of all, we do not consider that force should in any circumstances ever be used to try to obtain a solution to this constitutional problem. We do not consider it right to hand over this British problem to the United Nations. The reasons for this point of view we would rather deploy on an occasion when we have the facts before us in detail, and with all the solemnity which we can attach to an occasion of such great Parliamentary importance.
It is therefore our view that, in this highly dangerous situation, a better contribution can be made by this House towards a solution of this problem, which we all desire to see, by having the debate immediately the White Paper is available.

5.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I will not detain the House long, particularly as the House will have an opportunity, as early as possible, for a full debate on the whole Rhodesian problem. On that occasion the House will, I hope, have in front of it all the relevant material, proposals and counterproposals, with a full report on my conversations in Salisbury with Mr. Smith and some of his colleagues.
I am sure that the House will understand that at this moment it would not be right to lay this material before the House. In the very near future we shall be able to discuss all of these matters with the facts in front of us.
The present phase of the Rhodesian problem opened with the Commonwealth

Prime Ministers' Conference, which met in London in September. Although the Conference had many other important matters to discuss, as the House will recall, its main pre-occupation was Rhodesia and this was perhaps understandable.
As the Prime Minister reported to the House on 18th October, this was probably the most difficult Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference that there could possibly be. The House will have read the communique, copies of which will be placed in the Library. It will be seen from this that the British Government were under great pressure, not only from the radically orientated members of the Commonwealth, but from nearly every one of our Commonwealth partners. Nevertheless we stuck very firmly to our principles. We made it clear, as we have repeatedly told the House, that we are opposed to the use of force in order to bring about a constitutional solution and settlement.
Hon. Members will also notice that we, the British Government, were not prepared to accept that a new and yet tougher phase should be entered into until the illegal régime in Salisbury had a further chance to take those indispensable steps which would lead to a restoration of constitutional government in Rhodesia.
As the House will recall, my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and I flew to Salisbury immediately after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to ensure that the Government's intentions were known to all sections of opinion in Rhodesia as far as we were able. Under the aegis of the Governor, we met representatives of many different bodies. The people whom I saw were representatives of professional groups and trades unions which in all countries, I hope, would represent a cross-section of the people. We saw both supporters and opponents of the Rhodesian régime, white, coloured and black.
In my own discussions with Mr. Smith, I took particular care to make sure that he realised the unique opportunity which was now being granted to Rhodesia to make an early, peaceful return to constitutional rule. Naturally, we understood the need to make crystal clear the exact nature of the constitution which we envisaged under a legal government in Rhodesia; that is,


the road along which the Rhodesian Government would have to go.
It was for that reason that Sir Maurice James communicated the statement of our terms to Mr. Smith on 15th October. Last weekend—on Saturday, to be precise—we received Mr. Smith's reply. That is now being considered, and the next steps are being weighed up carefully.
At this stage, I am afraid that I cannot possibly say very much more, and I hope that the House will be patient for a short time until all the facts can be laid before it. I am sure that the House would agree that, while there is a chance of resolving the matter, it would not be right to go further into the details which are at present being discussed. It could only have the effect of damaging seriously the prospects of a just and honourable settlement.
Nevertheless, I want to make one or two general points. Firstly, to those who think that the secrecy of the discussions in which my right hon. and learned Friend and I have been engaged means that some dishonest deal is being made, I would only repeat that we, the British Government, are resolved that any settlement must be based on the six principles and on the terms of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué. It will be remembered that five of the six principles were ones which we inherited and endorsed completely. No proposals have been put forward which lie outside those terms of reference. There is no question of compromising on the six principles which have been accepted by both sides of the House. We will not be a party to a dishonourable settlement or one which is not just and fair to all the people of Rhodesia, of whatever race.
Secondly, we are committed to carry out the terms of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué. There can be no going back on that. Among other things, it means that there is now a time limit. Mr. Smith is fully aware of it, because I discussed it with him. He knows perfectly well that, unless the matter can be resolved within the next few weeks, the undertakings which we gave to the Commonwealth will be carried out in full. There should be no doubt about that on either side of the House.
Finally, to those hon. Gentlemen-some on each side of the House, though I think that they represent a small

minority—who dislike the assurances which I have just given and would ask that we make a deal with Mr. Smith on something less than the six principles, I have to say this. We have the interests of the whole of Rhodesia as much at heart as they have themselves, including the white minority. We want to see a future for the white minority in Rhodesia, and we want them to continue to play in the future the rôle which they have always played in the past in building up the prosperity and happiness of that country. But there is no future for the white minority if it is not accepted by their fellow Rhodesian citizens or by the world community.
There is no solution in a Rhodesia independent but isolated from the world community, and there is no future for a white minority governing an increasingly dissatisfied and restive majority.
Mr. Smith's solution of I.D.I, can only be a temporary one. World opinion and opinion within his own country will not stand still. He has now the last chance to put Rhodesia back into the main stream of world progress. He has the last chance to show statesmanship. It must be the wish of us all, even at this very late hour, that Mr. Smith will rise to the needs of the situation. Therefore, I ask the House to approve this Order.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: May I thank the Commonwealth Secretary for what he has said and for intervening in the debate, which was started from this bench. It is quite right that we could not expect him to go beyond what he said, and we could not expect him, nor did we ask him, to reveal to the House matters which are still subject to delicate discussions between the Government and the régime in Rhodesia. We accept what he has said.
The House must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) for raising this matter in the first place and, in a very statesmanlike speech, giving the House the opportunity of assessing the situation and conveying to the Government the views which some hon. Members have about the present state of affairs. That, after all, was the object.
If I may, I will remind the Commonwealth Secretary of two statements made


by the Prime Minister on 10th December last, with which my colleagues and I are in wholehearted agreement. It would help a great deal if he knew that most of us in the House re-endorse them.
The Prime Minister said:
…we cannot negotiate with an illegal regime, particularly one which has perverted, distorted and misused the 1961 Constitution … We cannot negotiate with these men, nor can they be trusted, after the return to constitutional rule, with the task of leading Rhodesia in the paths of freedom and racial harmony.
That is the important part of the statement. He went on:
Mr. Smith, although a private person, is the leader of a great political party there, and certainly his views will be sought. But as to entrusting to them, to that Government or to that Parliament, the conduct of restoration and reconstruction of affairs in Rhodesia—I think this would be absolutely intolerable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 776–7.]
That is the position which many of us would like to see reaffirmed in the discussions which have taken place.
I believe that a lot of the doubt in the Commonwealth about where the Government's purpose lies has been created by the many reports which we have heard, reliable or unreliable, about the content of the talks. It is perhaps summed up in an article by Mr. Garfield Todd, published in The Guardian a week or two ago, when he wrote:
One of the great psychological defeats suffered by Mr. Wilson results from legal prohibitions which are met only by impotence when defied.
It is the Government's determination which has been in question, not their integrity. I hope that the statement which we have had from the Commonwealth Secretary has meant a reaffirmation of the Government's determination.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North said, there is a case for accepting that the whole affair is expensive to us and a difficult question and, therefore, the answer simply is to recognise the Rhodesian Government and wash our hands of it completely. I hope that that position is not endorsed by anyone in this House, but there is a case for it. The alternative case is for standing firm on the principles which have been outlined, but, more important, on a correct interpretation of these principles, the interpretation which was placed on them

by the rest of the Commonwealth. There is no case for falling between those two stools and for creating doubt and confusion throughout the Commonwealth about the British Government's course of action in dealing with this very difficult matter.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: I know that the House has many other things to discuss tonight, and I do not want to detain it for too long.
I agree with the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). It would be wrong to let this opportunity go by without giving careful consideration to this matter before a final and irrevocable position has been reached and merely to wait until we are faced with a fait accompli.
There are very few matters more important than this that the House ever has to discuss. It is not a common occurrence—and this is fortunate—for the House to discuss matters which are the primary concern not of our own people but of another. In this case this country—and in particular this House—stands as the guardian of another population, as the protector of their freedom, their fortunes, and their future, and I think that we should be erring in our duty if we allowed this occasion to go by without expressing our deep concern about the present situation in Rhodesia, and the kind of solutions which may be reached within the next few days or weeks.
I am not an extremist in this matter, or at least I do not regard myself as being so. Indeed, in many ways my views are moderate compared with some which I have heard expressed, and some which I know are shared by some of my hon. Friends. I do not, for example, believe that it is realistic to ask the Government at this stage to demand that majority rule should be achieved before independence is given; in other words, to go back on the six principles which have been laid down from the beginning as the basis on which these negotiations are being conducted.
I would be content with any settlement which incorporated the six principles, on one condition, and that is that these principles were implemented fully, firmly, and fairly, and that the interpretation placed on them was one that a reasonable use


of those words would lead one to expect. It is clear that these principles are like the words of Humpty Dumpty, which can be made to mean anything that one likes. The crucial question for the House, and for the country, is, what interpretation is being placed on these principles by the Government? It is on this point that we require some assurance from Ministers this evening.
Perhaps I might consider the six principles one by one. The first principle is that unimpeded progress towards majority rule shall be maintained and guaranteed. One of the main things about which many of us are concerned is the way in which this unimpeded progress will be guaranteed. This point is closely bound up with another of even more vital importance, namely, the speed at which this unimpeded progress takes place, because it would be possible for this principle to be implemented by adding, say, three Africans to the roll of electors in each year, or in such a way that independence was finally achieved in the year 2000 or 2100. What really counts is how fast this unimpeded progress towards majority rule takes place.
If, for example, it were to be done by some kind of educational qualification as has been suggested and provided under other constitutions, it would be possible, simply by delaying the development of education, or by other means, by subjective interpretation about whether the qualification had been reached or not, to hold up the arrival of majority rule. Many people will not be satisfied unless this principle is interpreted in such a way that regularly and unmistakably more Africans are added to the roll every year in such a way that it can be seen that majority rule will be reached by a certain year. I would be satisfied if we could be certain that majority rule would be reached within ten years. Others may have other ideas, but if it were to be fifteen or twenty years, for many of us it would be far too long.
The second principle is that a guarantee should be provided against retrospective amendment of the Constitution. This is, mainly, one of the guarantees demanded within the first principle, a guarantee that this unimpeded progress should take place without some subsequent amendment which will hold it up.
It is suggested in the Press that the Government are seeking to meet this principle by the establishment of an Upper House, or Senate, with perhaps equal numbers of Africans and White Rhodesians, and that it should be impossible to amend the Constitution with less than a two-thirds majority. This would be admirable on one condition, namely, that the Africans who attain membership of the Upper House in this way are representative of the normal African Rhodesians, that they are not representative of the chiefs who might be induced by the Government to get up and nod and cheer approval if at some later stage there were to be an amendment of the Constitution, or some other impediment to the normal procedure. It is vital that the Africans should be representative Africans, and, if possible, elected on a normal franchise.
The third principle is that an immediate improvement should take place in the political status of the African population. This seems to me a somewhat woolly principle, and to some extent superfluous, because it appears to be already incorporated in the first principle. All that needs to be said about it is that it is desirable, so far as is possible, that Africans should take part on a common roll with the white population of Rhodesia, rather than on a B roll, since the B roll has the implication that African citizens are in some way second-class citizens of the country whose votes should count for less than those of others.
The fourth principle is that progress should be made in removing racial discrimination in Rhodesia. I think that there are few Members who would not wish this principle to be fully implemented in whatever settlement was arrived at. This refers particularly to the Land Apportionment Act in Rhodesia, and to continuing segregation in hotels, places of residence, places of entertainment, and other public places. I am sure that every hon. Member regards it as essential to lay down that all segregation of this kind shall be abandoned, in order to prevent Rhodesia, on the way to independence, perhaps following the path of South Africa, and certainly to ensure that property rights within the country are fairly distributed among the populations.
The fifth principle is perhaps the most crucial of all. This principle lays down that, whatever basis of settlement is


arrived at, it should be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. The crucial question is, in what way should this acceptability be tested? Press reports suggest that the Government have suggested that there should be some kind of roving commission in the country, going round asking people whether they approve of the proposals or not.
There are two disadvantages to this course. First, it is by no means sure that such a procedure will provide an accurate representation of the views of the Africans, because it depends very much who is asked. A procedure of this kind can often be used in such a way as to get the kind of answer that people want to arrive at. It is also dangerous for an even more important reason. An answer that is arrived at by this process is open to challenge by anybody who chooses to challenge it, and there is a strong likelihood that if such a procedure is used the answer arrived at will be subsequently challenged by the African population of Rhodesia and, perhaps even more important, by other African countries and the membership of the United Nations as a whole—and that would place this country in an extremely embarrassing situation.
The only fair and unchallengeable way of testing the feelings of the people of Rhodesia is through a referendum in which every adult citizen of that country has a chance to say for himself whether or not he regards these proposals as acceptable. If such a commission as has been suggested is established, it is of vital importance to ensure that its membership is widely representative; that it is not primarily a British commission but, perhaps, a Commonwealth commission with at least one African member. This might do something to make its conclusions more acceptable to the outside world.
Finally, there has been added the sixth principle, that any solution arrived at should not provide for any oppression of the majority by the minority, or of the minority by the majority. This is in no way a controversial principle. I am sure that every hon. Member would endorse it and would wish to make sure that it is clearly laid down in the constitution that there should be no subsequent oppression of any kind. It is particularly important to lay it down at this stage because it goes some way towards relieving the natural and quite understandable anxieties and apprehensions of the white population of Rhodesia as to the kind of settlement which may be arrived at.
These are the six principles. If I felt that they had been adequately and justly met I should be quite prepared to accept a settlement on those lines, but if a settlement were arrived at and subsequently approved by the House under which those principles were not fully met and at a subsequent stage the process towards constitutional majority rule were to be halted and, for whatever reason, the rights of the majority in Southern Rhodesia to attain control of the government of their country were impeded we in this country and in this House would have been guilty of such a betrayal of our most sacred responsibility that history would find it difficult to forgive us.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

GIBRALTAR

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: In asking the House to turn its attention to the question of Gibraltar, I am well aware that there has been an unexpected encroachment on our time, and I shall therefore endeavour to make what I have to say as compact as possible. But I must put the case fully, because my hon. Friends and I believe that in Gibraltar a situation of some seriousness and considerable importance is arising which, if mishandled, could lead to very sad consequences for this country and other countries.
My hon. Friends and I attach considerable importance to the maintenance of good relations with the Government and people of Spain. There are solid reasons for this. First, there is our trade with Spain, which has been expanding very rapidly. Since 1952 our exports to Spain have trebled. This year they should exceed £100 million. Last year there was a favourable balance of trade, from our point of view, of over £20 million. Spain, therefore, is a major trading partner of this country, and at this time this fact is of great interest and importance to all of us.
Secondly—and this must not be forgotten—the Spanish people can make an outstanding contribution to the culture and civilisation of the Western world. We wish to see Spain taking her rightful place in a united Europe. For both these reasons, therefore, we attach high importance to endeavouring to maintain good relations with Spain, and we are sad that the present dispute over Gibraltar should continue to throw a strain upon our relations.
One things is absolutely clear; we cannot solve this problem at the price of abandoning, under duress, either our legal rights or our clear responsibilities to the people of Gibraltar. For that reason we have watched with some anxiety the course of the negotiations that have been taking place, particulars of which are set out in some detail in the White Paper recently published. We agree that it is right, in principle, always to try to reach agreement on matters of dispute through discussion, but we feel that on more than one occasion the policy of Her Majesty's Government has shown a certain weak-

ness and a certain giving way under pressure which may have encouraged the Spanish Government to expect that if they continued the pressure they would get more and more concessions.
I can give one very clear example of this. In October, 1965, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said:
Her Majesty's Government remains ready to entertain proposals by Spain for conversations but cannot embark on substantive discussions as long as the abnormal situation on the frontier continues and cannot regard sovereignty as a matter for negotiation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1965; Vol. 718, c. 98.]
But the position has not been maintained. Discussions have been going on for a long time while what is called, in the Minister's words, an abnormal situation on the frontier—a nice way of putting it —has not only continued but has intensified steadily to the disadvantage of the people of Gibraltar. Small wonder that in the face of this giving way under pressure the Spanish Government should expect further concessions from further pressure.
The same considerations apply in respect of the words about not regarding sovereignty as a matter for negotiation. Throughout the talks which are referred to in detail in the White Paper there is constant reference to the question of sovereignty, so that on two major matters Her Majesty's Government have, in our opinion, given way, and have retreated from the position they had previously taken up publicly. We believe that this retreat has done damage and this damage has not been repaired in any way by the rather foolish insults sometimes offered by the Colonial Secretary to the Spanish Government and the Head of the Spanish State. Abuse is not a substitute for firmness.
There is no doubt that the present restrictions imposed by Spain are harmful and are wholly unjustified. There is no doubt that damage of a substantial character is being done to the economy of Gibraltar. That economy depends primarily upon defence expenditure, and here an effect has already been felt by the withdrawal of the Air Force squadron—admittedly not connected with the talks. This withdrawal has had a substantial effect upon the trade and economy of Gibraltar. The restrictions imposed by Spain are severely hitting the tourist


industry and the ancillary services upon which Gibraltar so much depends—the provision of motor cars, hotel accommodation, restaurants, shops, car hire services and day excursions. These things may sound small in terms of international affairs, but they bulk very large in terms of a community of about 25,000 people. Gibraltar's tourist industry is largely based on people passing through to Spain, particularly in their cars, and people coming by car or coach from Spain to spend some time—often a short time—in Gibraltar. Therefore, their second main economic prop—tourism—has been substantially affected by the actions of the Spanish Government.
However, while the Spanish restrictions can damage Gibraltar, they cannot possibly stifle its economy. They cannot prevent the necessary supplies being brought in from elsewhere, and even if all the Spanish labour were withdrawn, I believe that it would be feasible to replace it from elsewhere. I hope that plans are being made to do this if necessary. What is quite clear from the short visit which I paid to Gibraltar, following the visit of the Colonial Secretary, is that the people there are completely determined to put up with any suffering or inconvenience caused by the Spanish restrictions, if that is necessary to maintain their position, to which they attach so much importance.
The people of Gibraltar recognise and welcome the help now accorded them by the Government. I believe that this help is rather belated. It was only after the Colonial Secretary, under some pressure in this House, went out to Gibraltar himself that the announcement was made about the £600,000. It would have been much better if the announcement had been made earlier in the summer, when the gap between the Spanish and British points of view was so apparent.
Even now, it is not clear how far the Government are committed. I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will make it clear that whatever further help should be needed over and above the £600,000 towards Gibraltar's development plan will certainly be forthcoming. A solemn assurance on that question would be of great help to the morale of the people on the Rock.
The other matter which concerns people in Gibraltar—certainly judging from the discussions which I had there—is the reference of this problem to the International Court. It is to this that I wish now to turn. In the short time that I was there, I saw representatives of the trade unions, the Chamber of Commerce, the Housewives' Association, and many other representatives of different aspects of public opinion. I found a very widespread concern—genuine, unprovoked concern—about the reference of this matter to the International Court and about how Britain could continue to safeguard their position once the matter had been put in the hands of the Court. It is on this that I hope that the Government will enlighten us this evening.
This reference to the Court comes on top of the disquiet caused by the repeated refusal of Ministers to give a clear assurance when asked from these benches that they would not contemplate handing over the sovereignty of Gibraltar to another power against the wishes of the inhabitants. This is the assurance for which we have asked time and time again, but it has never been forthcoming. I find it difficult to understand why not. I do not believe that the Government would contemplate for a moment handing over the people of Gibraltar to the rule of another power against their wishes. That would be a total abrogation of our responsibility to the people of the Colony.
The Government's reluctance to say this clearly may have been based on their worry about the status of the people of Gibraltar in these negotiations. I see, on page 55 of the White Paper, reference to the Spanish contention, which was then being denied, that we regarded the people of Gibraltar as having an option to dispose at will of the territory of Gibraltar. Also, the Government, in their note to the Spanish Government, made it clear that we
do not seek to turn the people of Gibraltar into a third party with the same standing in the dispute as Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government.
This is absolutely right, but this is not our point in asking for this assurance. We are asking for an assurance not about the legal rights of the people of Gibraltar but about the obligations of Her Majesty's Government to these people—quite a different matter. I do


not see how, in any way, negotiations could have been impeded if the Government had clearly recognised this obligation, which I regard as a very solemn one.
The other point which worries me about the reference to the International Court is that what is in issue over it is no longer merely a legal matter. There is the position under the Treaty of Utrecht, which has subsisted for over 200 years now and is the basis for what I believe to be the entirely valid, legal, British title to Gibraltar, which is, presumably, what the International Court will look into.
But what they cannot look into is the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, who, since the Treaty of Utrecht, have grown up as a population in Gibraltar. This is a political issue and a human issue and an issue of British responsibility, which is as important in every way as the legal issue.
I do not see how this can be fitted in with the reference of the matter to the International Court and the acceptance, as I understand, by the Government of whatever ruling the Court may give. However eminent the authorities which compose that Court, however strong we think our case, we all know that once one goes to law one cannot be certain in advance of what the results will be. Now that the offer has been made of a reference to the Court, one of two things will happen—either the Spanish Government will accept the offer or it will refuse it.
If they accept, clearly we must fight the case all the way through, with all the vigour and skill at our command, treating the whole of the Colony—the Rock and the neutral territory—as one problem, which it clearly is. They all pull together, they are one entity and one unity. But the Government should explain absolutely clearly this afternoon this vital point—how do they propose to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of Gibraltar if the verdict of the International Court should go against us?
Of course, the Spanish Government may not agree to a reference to the Court. Perhaps the Government are hoping that this will be so, though I doubt whether that is wise tactics. But if there is no agreement and the matter

does not go to the court because the Spanish Government rejects our offer, then the time would have come to recognise that we are highly unlikely to make any further progress along the lines of the talks which recently took place. There is such a wide gap between the two that a period for reflection and further consideration would surely be indicated. Certainly, I am sure that we should refuse to continue any further negotiations while the restrictions against Gibraltar are maintained and intensified.
The other thing which is often mentioned is retaliation. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that retaliation is something which one is reluctant to indulge in, but it is not wise to rule out in every circumstance the possibility of retaliation. By doing so, one automatically encourages people to push harder and harder against one's position. What we will have to do if there is no agreement is build up the economy of Gibraltar as fast as we can and with more vigour than this is being shown at present. We must not, in this case, be bound by precedent. There are many things—possibly unorthodox things—which can be done to help the economy of Gibraltar which would not create a precedent for other territories.
I recognise, as an ex-Chancellor, how wary the Treasury is of giving precedents for other countries, but surely no precedent can be created by giving special economic help to a British Colony which is undergoing economic siege. I hope that the Government will be bold and imaginative. They will have to be prepared for the withdrawal of the Spanish labour force, but the withdrawal of the female labour force was met very effectively by the women of Gibraltar themselves.
If the remaining 6,000 or 7,000 Spanish male workers were withdrawn, their place could be taken reasonably rapidly if proper provisions were made in advance and particularly if emergency accommodation were ready in advance for incoming workers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us on this point.
We ought to concentrate on building up the tourist industry. We can do this by little measures and large. Let me give one small example. Why not let people returning from Gibraltar have a larger duty-free allowance through the


British Customs than those coming from elsewhere? That may be discrimination and creating a precedent, but it would be useful and would certainly not be expensive.
The help which the Government are giving is aimed at building up the infrastructure of the island and increasing building there, clearing up some of the waste and derelict areas and laying the foundations for the development of a tourist industry. The major strength of Gibraltar in future, the major accretion of economic strength there, must come from building up a tourist industry in its own right and not merely an entrepôt tourist industry for Spain. This will mean, for example, building more hotels. A large convention hotel established in Gibraltar would attract a great number of visitors and help to strengthen the economy of the Island. That is the type of development for which Gibraltar is looking, and assistance is needed towards the loan finance necessary for the building of new hotels.
There are other ways in which we can help. We could encourage shipping lines to call more often at Gibraltar. I am glad to note that since Lord Mancroft's visit the Cunard Line has based one of its cruising liners there, and that will be of considerable assistance. Technical assistance in the form of expert tourist industry advice to the Government there would also be of considerable value.
I put these points forward as suggestions of a practical character, because my hon. Friends and I believe that if there is to be no reference to the International Court the time has come to build up, really vigorously and with determination, the economy of Gibraltar so that it can stand on its own feet and stand up to any economic restrictions which the Spanish Government may consider imposing.
I promised to keep my remarks compact. I have tried to make the main points, to express our doubts about the negotiations so far and our concern about the reference to the International Court. We wish particularly to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how the interests and wishes which have been so clearly expressed by the people of Gibraltar about their future are to be safeguarded by Her Majesty's Government because we

believe with great intensity that Her Majesty's Government have a solemn obligation to these people; and we will hold right hon. Gentlemen opposite to account to carry that out.

6.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I understand the mood in which the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) expressed his view and doubts. I appreciate them and I appreciate more than anything else the difference between his approach and the approach of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition the other day on the unity aspect of the whole question. I am grateful that the right hon. Member for Barnet did not seek to distinguish between the Rock and the Isthmus, as did his right hon. Friend the other day.

Mr. Maudling: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the position. My right hon. Friend was making the point that if one brings in one part of the territory one therefore brings in the Rock as well as the neutral territory.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Barnet did much better in his speech. I suggest that he leaves the matter there. He expressed his view in a way which I very much appreciate and I am sure that we are wiser to leave it there; that is, if we are really considering the interests of the people of Gibraltar.
The more detailed questions asked by the right hon. Member for Barnet—about what we are doing for the people of Gibraltar and so on—will be answered later by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I wish to deal with the other major questions he asked and I begin by saying again, as firmly and as loudly as I can, that in my view Gibraltar is British by right. We intend to support Gibraltar and to safeguard the interests of the people there. I have complete confidence—coming to this quite new office of mine, but having had the advantage of talking some time ago with one of my predecessors about this problem and having considered the matter clearly—in the strength of our case and I am, therefore, quite willing to submit it to the International Court of Justice. I believe devoutly that somebody in this world must stand up for referring


cases to the International Court, not only when there is certainty but when there might not be certainty.
The right hon. Member for Barnet nearly got into the position in which the Leader of the Opposition got himself the other day; of saying that the only cases we would refer to an international authority would be those about which we were absolutely sure and that we would not refer any others. In that case, how do we establish our belief in the United Nations, in the International Court or in the rule of law in the world? If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to fight me on this I will take that fight on. This is one matter which the British people must face and must stand by. Otherwise we will have Vietnams all over the world.
Whatever may be said, I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite what they are up to on this issue. When they were in office they were acting on the same advice about Gibraltar as I am. There is absolute continuity in this. They were told, as I am told, of Spanish intentions towards Gibraltar. They heard, as I am hearing, the views of the leaders and the people of Gibraltar. They were being informed of the probable course of events over Gibraltar. They were getting the same advice, knowing that events were going the same way, but, despite all this, they were trying to sell ships, frigates, to the Spanish Government. They were told that obstruction on the landward side was a probability, although one did not have to be in power to know that. Yet hon. Gentlemen opposite were willing to sell to Spain the means by which Spain could obstruct us on the seaward side.
When we were in Opposition we opposed the Government on this matter and said that we should keep at least one side open. When we said that, they were rude to us. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had had his way, the Spaniards would not merely have had the means of obstructing us on the landward side but on the seaward side as well, and I find it very hard to understand how their present position of being tough with Spain goes along with the position which they adopted when in power.

Captain Walter Elliot: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that the possession by Spain of half a dozen or even a dozen frigates would be used to obstruct our access to Gibraltar? Is he putting that forward as a serious proposition?

Mr. Brown: I suspect that Spain would be rather better off with some frigates than without them. What I am saying is that if that were the position of the Opposition when they were the Government, I do not see that it squares with the position which they are adopting today. Having been willing, at a time when Spain was already embarked on this course, to sell her frigates, now they come into opposition they cry out for much tougher measures—not only no frigates; they now want us to send gun boats to deal with the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is all right hon. Members saying that. Then what does this demand amount to? I listened to the right hon. Member for Barnet, for whom I have a lot of respect, much more than I listened to what was said the other day. But at the end of the day, what does it amount to? I should like to examine it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Brown: I will give way in a moment, but I hope that later I shall not be charged with having spoken for too long. Having listened to the right hon Gentleman, I could not decide what he was demanding, unless, like his right hon. Friend the other day, he was in fact demanding that I should go to war.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he was a member of the Government after the war which sold jet engines to the Russians, and within two years we were participating in the Berlin airlift?

Mr. Brown: With respect, I cannot see what that has to do with Gibraltar. I am not here talking to back bench Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am talking to Ministers and ex-Ministers who were Ministers just before me, who shared the same advice and who faced the same problems. I want them to understand this or to confess to it. The right hon. Member for Barnet was,


quite properly, very concerned about our balance of payments, just as I was concerned about them when I was at the Department for Economic Affairs. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) was then Prime Minister. Nobody defended more strongly than either of them did the selling of frigates to Spain at a time when each knew that this Gibraltarian question was on the agenda.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is a rather curious doctrine that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to ex-Ministers and not to backbench Members. I have not heard that before in the House. Is not the point that during the whole of the time that we were in office we did maintain friendly relations with Spain so that they never pushed this question to the point of active dispute? No question of strength arose or the use of force. We were hoping—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) please keep quiet for one moment? We were hoping to bring Spain into the N.A.T.O. system and to make her a member of a united Europe. Would not the right hon. Gentleman return to the constructive part of his speech?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman says that he was hoping to do that. He knows as well as I do that this problem arose under his Administration, that he faced it, and that he thought that if he sold some frigates to Spain he would carry Spain through.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Stop imagining things.

Mr. Brown: Unhappily, the right hon. Gentleman turned out to be wrong, and the problem came to be faced after he had gone out of office. He knows too much about this to pretend that it was not a problem for him when he was in office.
I laid before the House last week a White Paper setting out all the documents and all the evidence. I set out the proposals and the arguments that have been advanced on both sides. There is no party issue in this. I want to describe the pattern which has emerged. I do not want to take an anti-Spain or pro-Spain

position in this. I think that too many loose and irresponsible charges have been made. We are not following a policy of weakness and appeasement.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Just of abuse, I would say, from time to time in 1964.

Mr. Brown: It may well be. I just do not know about that. Could we concentrate on putting the British case? It would be a very good thing if some hon. Members opposite, whose own Government were not very successful at handling this, would stop trying to turn this into an inter-party occasion.

Captain W. Elliot: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman try to do it?

Mr. Brown: With great respect, it does not help to make it an inter-party matter. Let us try to present a British position here. It would do the Spaniards no harm to hear a firm position here presented.
At the first meeting on 18th May the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom I know quite well and have known for a long time, proposed that a convention should be concluded between Britain and Spain under which Gibraltar would pass to Spanish sovereignty while we should retain a British base there which would be co-ordinated either with the Spanish defence system or in some wider grouping, such as that which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Guarantees under that were offered to the Gibral-tarians, who would have been able to retain their British nationality, and they were offered a legal régime to protect their interests.
But these proposals were accompanied by a mass of argument, most of it legal. We gave the Spanish Government a detailed commentary on the statement of Señor Castiella and refuted all his main supporting arguments. On his proposals, we told the Spanish Government squarely that we saw no prospect of any radical solution in the present state of opinion both in Britain and in Gibraltar. Instead, we put forward on 12th July some counter-proposals which we regarded as more realistic and more likely than theirs to lead to a just settlement which would safeguard the legitimate interests of all concerned.
We made two counter-proposals. The first was originally a Spanish proposal. It was made by Señor Castiella himself


during the exchange of views at the opening talks. He then said quite plainly that if we would take down the frontier fence to which Spain objected, Spain would be ready to remove some of the restrictions at the frontier. This offer of Señor Castiella's had a lot of publicity in Spain and I believe that there is no doubt that he meant it when he said it. So our first proposal was to put this suggestion of his into effect. But it was at once taken back by the Spaniards, and we were told that we had misunderstood the proposals and that further discussions on these lines would be a "waste of time".
The other counter-proposals which we made on 12th July were practical ones aimed at laying the foundations for future understanding by dealing with a number of points about which the Spanish Government had complained. The Spanish answer to all this was to say that a number of our ideas could be considered provided that it was agreed that they were simply a preliminary to the early hand-over of Gibraltar to Spain.
Those exchanges, therefore, produced no concrete result. Our positions were too far apart. The discussions showed clearly, however—and this goes to the heart of our disagreement—that legal arguments and the legal issue lay at the root of the dispute. The two Governments, ours and the Spanish Government, are working on different premises about what the legal position is over a wide range of important matters. It seemed quite clear to me that there was little prospect of any progress unless the legal issues could first be clarified. I thought that they would best be clarified if we referred them to the appropriate international body.
The talks have also shown up clearly certain contradictions in the Spanish position. Spain claims that her claim over Gibraltar is waged in the name of decolonisation. This I feel to be fantastic. Spain clearly wishes to grab Gibraltar against the wishes of those who live there. Nobody could describe this as an act of decolonisation. I have spent all my life fighting against colonialism and I would regard this as absolutely ridiculous. I simply do not understand how anybody who is concerned, as I am, to end colonisation could regard

such a proposal as a move in that direction.
The Spanish claim is even more extraordinary in the light of her own record in dealing with her own colonial territories. Over the last 20 years, Britain has given independence to 700 million people. Over the same period, Spain has been hanging on to her colonial possessions. Ifni and the Spanish Sahara, Rio Muni and Fernando Po are still regarded as being Spanish. The enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla remain Spanish to this day. These facts speak for themselves and should be heard by the Committee of 24 in New York.

Sir George Sinclair: I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he sees nothing good, honourable or creditable in Great Britain's colonial record. If he does see it, will be say so?

Mr. Brown: I have just said that. The hon. Member clearly was not listening. I have just said that we have a magnificent record. There is nobody else in the world who could stand up and say that in 20 years, 700 million people who were colonial subjects had become independent.

Sir G. Sinclair: The right hon. Gentleman claimed credit for having been a fighter against colonialism and all the rest of it for all his life, and he was hoping to whip up some sort of support in some quarters. This was not a tribute to something to which he subsequently paid lip-service.

Mr. Brown: I get the point. If the hon. Member wished me to say that we discharged our colonial responsibilities more honourably than most, I would say that the answer is, "Yes".

Sir G. Sinclair: Honourably in itself?

Mr. Brown: It cannot be honourable in itself to be a colonial Power. In this case, it must be our stand that our great contribution is that we have passed over our colonial obligations to the peoples themselves, because that is the whole argument which we have with the Spaniards. If the hon. Member is trying to prove that a colonial Power may be a good colonial Power, he may well hand it to the Spaniards on a plate. I suggest that he does not do that.

Mr. F. A. Burden: How does the right hon. Gentleman suppose, for instance, that Gibraltar could be handed over to the Gibraltarians without any support from us in view of the threat from Spain?

Mr. Brown: I will come to that presently. I am dealing with the colonial argument. We must here stand on the proud record of Britain—it has nothing to do with any party Government—over a long time in having been better almost than, indeed better than, anybody else at disengaging ourselves from being a colonial Power, bringing about freedom and doing it without hurting the people to whom we have given it. This we must stand on.
The real problem here—and I now come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—which the Spaniards so far do not see is that the issue is a matter involving human beings and that their interests should be paramount. This is what the United Nations Charter tells us we should take account of. It is not just an irritating obstacle to Spanish territorial demands. There are 20,000 people there. They have views. In all our approach to this or any other similar problem, this must be paramount.
The Spanish statement of 12th July——

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, I wonder whether he would spare a word for the Basques and the Catalans, who in many respects, ethnic, cultural and linguistic, consider themselves as much oppressed colonials as the people of the Spanish colonial territories overseas?

Mr. Brown: I am dealing with Gibraltar.

Mr. Maudling: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that point, may I ask him to deal with the main point of my argument? Accepting, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that the interests of the people of the territory must be paramount, how does he reconcile this with accepting the verdict of the World Court whatever it may be?

Mr. Brown: I will come to that in logical progression. At the moment, I am not being helped by all the interventions.
I am trying hard to use this occasion both to answer the right hon. Gentleman, as I hope he will agree, in a sensible and serious way and also to establish some things which other people may wish to consult.
The Spanish statement of 12th July said that
the consent or otherwise of the Gibraltarians to what Spain proposed to Great Britain is legally and politically irrelevant to the international solution of the problem.
It went on to say that
whatever the good will of Spain, she cannot expect that the complete solution of the problem of Gibraltar should be held back through the obstinacy of the inhabitants".
For our part, we attach tremendous importance to the wishes of the Gibraltarians. The responsibility for Gibraltar is ours, and we have told the Spanish Government so. We are not seeking to make the Gibraltarians a third party. The responsibility, I repeat, is ours; but at the same time we recognise, as the Spanish Government should recognise, that the wishes of the Gibraltarians are a very strong factor in the situation.
One thing which seemed to me to emerge quite clearly from the talks between the two Governments was that the legal issues would have to be clarified if progress was to be made. Our proposal that the legal issues should, therefore, be referred to the International Court of Justice seems to me to be a logical sequel to the discussions which have taken place.
I have said elsewhere, I said earlier this evening, I say again, that I believe it to be the duty of nations like ours to set an example by referring international disputes to the appropriate world authority, and I say again, even if the other side of the House finds it difficult to accept, that that means being ready to accept the resulting decisions, even when they are not agreeable to us—even when they are not agreeable to us—and if the former Attorney-General really believes that the only time you go to law is when you are sure you will win, I find it hard to understand how he ever became a Queen's Counsel, let alone Attorney-General.

Sir John Hobson: I think the right hon. Gentleman did not quite hear my intervention. I am sorry. I will make it


again. The logical conclusion is you accept the conclusion whether acceptable to you or not and whether it is agreeable or not to the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Brown: The former Attorney-General surely must often have enunciated the doctrine that you accept it whether it is agreeable to your clients——

Sir J. Hobson: No.

Mr. Brown: —or to the other lawyer's clients; to oneself or the others. Else how did the former Attorney-General ever become an Attorney-General?
That is a very important issue. If I could have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention, I should be obliged. One either believes in the rule of law, whether internal or external for the minute does not matter, or one does not. If one believes in the rule of law one accepts the decisions which are made by the legal bodies. The former Attorney-General, if he is really insisting that he only ever advised his colleagues, or his clients, to go to law on the condition they knew they were going to win, must surely be enunciating a doctrine which the Bar Council would find it very hard to understand.

Sir J. Hobson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I never advised my clients to go to law when I thought they were going to lose. One cannot draw an analogy between ordinary clients and international law, which is not compulsory but voluntary, under which the Government assume an obligation to accept the decision not only for themselves but for those for whom they are trustees. The only point which remains about the International Court is that the Government have committed the people of Gibraltar to a decision with which they may not agree.

Mr. Brown: And having, as we have, and as he gave his colleagues in his day, complete confidence in our case, what is wrong with our then going to the International Court to get a ruling that we are right? Why is it that the former Attorney-General who was so sure when he was in office we had nothing to fear is now pretending in Opposition that may be we are selling people down the river? What has changed, except that he has gone from this Bench to that Bench?
That is all, and now there is some politics, he thinks—I think, quite wrongly, but he thinks—to be played in this.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a lot of interventions and a lot of hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I am attacked for not giving way and sometimes I am attacked for giving way. I beg your pardon.
I still believe we must be right to accept a decision. When I went to New York in October—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is conducting another debate, but I should like to have his attention—when I went to New York and I talked to the United Nations, I said that I believed that the future of the world lies in strengthening the authority of the United Nations, of the international authority, in the world. I believe that passionately. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe that—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire in a speech at Berwick on Tweed some years ago suggested that he did not—they had better say so. But I do, and so long as I am Foreign Secretary Britain will refer proposals which involve, as this one does, legal issues to the International Court, which is the judicial organ of the United Nations and, in my view, is the right body to judge such issues. I believe that this is the kind of civilised behaviour which is appropriate to the second half of the twentieth century. I believe it is the kind of civilised behaviour we should like to see a great deal more of in the world.
Then believing this, as I do, I think Gibraltar has a good case to start with. Nobody here or in Gibraltar has in fact any need to worry. I have not any doubt of the result. Nor have the elected representatives of Gibraltar. They fully support the proposal we have made. They have said so to their own people. We have, let me repeat, the full support of the Gibraltar Ministers for the proposal we have put forward.
Now hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite speculate about all the variety of judgments which the Court could in theory deliver, and they invite us to announce how we would deal with each hypothetical judgment. I do not believe this does any


service to Britain or to Gibraltar. I think it is unreal, and I think it is irresponsible, and I think it could have—this refers particularly to the recent intervention—very dangerous effects on our case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—Yes, indeed. And the same goes for some of the talk, although the right hon. Gentleman did not follow this tonight, about which issue should be before the Court.
I want to make it quite clear that, in my view, the legal issues go together. They should be referred together. They stand together. An offer to go to the Court must be fair if it is to have any value, and if it is to be fair it must be comprehensive. I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite think that on some issues we are so impregnable we need not refer them. I do not accept this. I do not think anybody, whether one is a lawyer or a trade union negotiator like myself, should ever take out the area where he thinks he is strong and refer only the area where, by implication, he thinks he is not so strong. I do not divide the territory of Gibraltar, and I do not want the Court to divide the territory of Gibraltar. I do not see any difference between the Rock and the so-called neutral territory, the Isthmus. We do a great disservice to the Gibraltarians if we try to define such artificial distinctions, and I am absolutely certain that no one now in opposition would draw those distinctions were they sitting over here and were they Ministers.
The Spanish behaviour towards Gibraltar has meant difficulties, inconveniences and hardships for the people of Gibraltar. The latest restrictions on the frontier have deprived them of their legitimate outlet to Spain by car, by bus or by any other road transport; but I believe that Spain has sadly misjudged the temper and the resolution of Gibraltar, and of this country, if she thinks that her campaign will bring the people of Gibraltar to their knees or bring Britain to terms.
The efforts of the Gibraltarians, their versatility, their buoyancy, have, with the necessary help from Britain, resulted in the complete failure of Spain's campaign.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does my right hon. Friend not think that if we withdrew passports to Spain and withheld credit facilities it might force Spain

into a frightened sense of self-inquiry? Would he not agree that reprisals are the only language that a Fascist dictatorship understands?

Mr. Brown: No. The answer to that is, frankly, no. It is a course on which I would hate to embark. Telling people which countries they may visit or which countries they may not visit is, if I may say so, the almost classical way in which any Fascist Government sets out on its course. I do not propose to embark on that kind of course, and if my hon. Friend thinks about it he will see how dangerous that kind of line would be and how much better it is to present oneself to a properly constituted legal authority and rely on the strength of one's case. Otherwise what is the distinction between us and the Fascists whom he denounces? There has to be some distinction. The distinction must be our belief in the strength of our case and our willingness to submit it to a legal authority. There is no other distinction.
The measures we have taken to support the people of Gibraltar have, I think, been adequate. There has been no need, and there is no need now, for panic measures. Not only are we keeping a day-to-day watch on the situation, but we are operating in close concert with the Governor of Gibraltar, with the people of Gibraltar, and with their own Ministers. The welcome which they gave to the statements which my right hon. Friend made during his recent visit is the best demonstration that Gibraltarians agree with the position we have taken up.
As for the future, I made our determination, to sustain the people of Gibraltar, quite clear when I made my statement to the House last week. If we think that further financial aid is needed to sustain them in the face of difficulties, we will provide it. Neither Gibraltar nor this House need have any doubt on that score.
It is true that Gibraltar is no longer to Britain what it was in imperialist days. It is no longer the indispensable fortress guarding the route to India; but it still has an important rôle to play in our defensive arrangements. On top of that, we have a great responsibility to the people of Gibraltar, and this has not changed. It is a matter of profound importance. At the very heart of this


controversy are 20,000 people who depend upon us. They do not depend upon the Labour Party or the Conservative Party; they depend upon this country.
I do not think this should be a matter of party feeling, either in this country or in this House. I am not myself concerned with anti-Franco feeling. I do not believe in making foreign policy according to whether one likes or dislikes a leader of' a country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am concerned with the people one is dealing with. Our responsibility, as I see it, is to look after the people of Gibraltar and to get the issues between Spain and ourselves solved by normal civilised international processes. Sir, in this task I would hope that I could look to this House—both sides of it—for its wholehearted support.

7.6 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Quite frankly, the whole House must have been absolutely astonished at the speech of the Foreign Secretary this evening. At Blackpool recently my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), in welcoming the Foreign Secretary to his new post, said that there was a national society for being kind to George Brown. I can only say that our allegiance to that society has been strained to the utmost this evening. It is incredible, to those of us who have taken a keen interest in this subject, that we should have had to listen to this rambling monologue which touched on everything except the issues which most concern us and the people of Gibraltar.
Let me take one or two examples. The Foreign Secretary referred to the legal question and spoke of the Gibraltar people as clients. There is one very great difference between Gibraltarians and clients. Clients choose their own lawyers. We are in the position of trustees to beneficiaries and we have no right, merely to suit our own ideas, to decide that something should or should not be settled according to a certain method. To ignore the rights of the Gibraltarians and to refer to them as clients is wholly misleading and is, in fact, utterly dishonest.
The Foreign Secretary spoke about taking the dispute to the International Court as though we were the plaintiff. We are not and never have been the

plaintiff. I had a much smaller practice than my right hon. and learned Friend the former Conservative Attorney-General and other hon. Members, but I cannot remember a case of an individual in firm possession actually seeking to go to law against himself. That is the position into which the Foreign Secretary has carried us on this matter. We are the people against whom a dispute is raging at the moment. It is up to the Spanish to adopt the civilised measures to which the Foreign Secretary has referred. Are we going to say—which appears to be the Foreign Secretary's policy—that if charges are made against us in any part of the world, then we as defendants will refer the matter to the International Court? That is the path he has set us on.
The Foreign Secretary complained, almost in a melancholy way, that all he was doing was following the policy of the Tory Government. However, he ignored one salient point—as to what he and his right hon. Friends have done. They said they were not going to talk under duress. They said this publicly, yet a few weeks later they did talk under duress. That is the essential difference. He did not inherit the situation; he created it, and the Spanish are in a position where they can keep on pushing us.
Then there was this talk about frigates. The idea that apparently only British frigates are capable of obstructing Gibraltar is certainly a novel one. I personally have the impression that there are a few other nations capable of building frigates. I imagine that French ones, for one, would be just about as good at obstructing Gibraltar as any other nation, and that is where Spain went to after we refused to supply it with frigates.

Mr. George Brown: On that matter, what I was constrasting was the tremendous anti-Spanish attitude which the Conservative Party is now taking with the very pro-Spanish attitude which the party took when it was in office.

Sir F. Bennett: On the contrary. Neither in anything that my right hon. Friend said in opening, nor in anything that any of us on this side of the House will say, will a single anti-Spanish statement be made, except in the context of


the dispute over Gibraltar. [Interruption.] When the Labour Party came to power, it quite gratuitously, not only over the frigates, but over the cancellation of naval manoeuvres, entered into a new element of hostility, apart altogether from the Gibraltar dispute. The Foreign Secretary will realise, when he reflects upon it tomorrow, that the picture he gave us of our saving Gibraltar from a seaward attack by refusing to sell the Spanish our frigates was the biggest piece of nonsense in his speech, which is saying a lot.
Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman said that it would have been wrong to let the Spanish have the frigates, because it might have led to a blockade. Yet in his own White Paper one of the concessions he offered the Spanish Government was the free and unfettered use of Gibraltar for the Spaish Navy. This is what he is offering them. They cannot keep the frigates outside, but they can have them inside. This is the position into which the Foreign Secretary has put the House.
There was only one thing on which I altogether agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and that was when he said that it was a great pity to confuse this issue with our like or dislike of the present Spanish Government. An intervention by one of his hon. Friends showed perfectly clearly that this was what the right hon. Gentleman was doing. We on this side are not interested in what form of Government Spain has in this dispute. That is irrelevant. What we are interested in is our Government's treatment of the people of Gibraltar. We should expect that treatment to be exactly the same even if there were, God forbid, a Socialist Government along the lines of the present British Government in Spain at present. We would not wish that on the Spaniards. Nevertheless, we want our support of the people of Gibraltar to be continued, irrespective of what régime there is in Spain at present.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore clearly suggest that he prefers the Fascist Government of Spain to the Socialist Government of Great Britain?

Sir F. Bennett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should tempt me into such horribly indivious comparisons.
I turn now to the question which is the centrepiece of the feelings of all of us on this side, as exemplified in my right hon. Friend's remarks. This is our definite anxiety about the whole question of the reference to the International Court of Justice. Here I want to go through some of the correspondence and some of the Questions and Answers in the House of Commons recently. It is worth while my doing this so that I get on the record what has been happening.
On 24th October I asked the Foreign Secretary
if he will define precisely what aspects of the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar Her Majesty's Government has proposed should be referred to the International Court of Justice.
The Answer I received was quite clearly not meant to give me the information I required. The Answer merely said:
the intention of Her Majesty's Government is to submit to the Court all the legal issues in dispute."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 106.]
This did not make it clear whether sovereignty, as I had asked, was to be one of them.
I followed that up with a personal letter to the Foreign Secretary to which I was accorded the courtesy—I say this at once—of a prompt answer. In his reply the Foreign Secretary confirmed—I think that this was the first time this had been said; it certainly had not been reported anywhere in the Press—that the draft did include a request to the Court to give its decision as to whether Spain or the United Kingdom had sovereignty over the whole Territory of Gibraltar which, of course, includes the Rock.
That letter was written by the Foreign Secretary on 28th October, giving me this information quite explicitly. I thank him for it. Two days later the right hon. Gentleman gave my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a very rough time for asking precisely the same question. The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend was being very unhelpful, yet he was merely asking the same question the answer to which I had received in writing from the Foreign Secretary only a few days before. My right hon. Friend himself got reproved for putting a question which the Foreign Secretary had found it proper to answer, without marking the letter to me "Confidential", only three days previous to the exchange on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton) rose——

Sir F. Bennett: I shall not give way. I want to get on. I suppose I should be very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for treating me with such respect, in view of earlier remarks this evening.
I turn now to what followed after that. I then wrote to the Foreign Secretary on the very point that is now the centre-piece of all our anxieties. Although we are more confident—I, as a lawyer and as a politician, am just as confident as is the right hon. Gentleman—that we have a 100 per cent. case on Gibraltar, still the fact remains that no litigant ever goes to court, or very rarely goes to court, unless he thinks that he will win. Even in my own small past experience, I came across an awful lot of people who were 100 per cent. convinced of the Tightness of their case, but who nevertheless lost. This is a fact which the Foreign Secretary has no right to dodge in his calculations, because here he is dealing with beneficiaries and he is the trustee. He and his advisers cannot rightly ignore this fact.

Mr. George Brown: If in that case the hon. Gentleman advises that we do not go to court, what does he advise us to do?

Sir F. Bennett: I think that the right hon. Gentleman told us to wait for the orderly sequence of his speech. I will come to that point a little later. I think I can claim that my speech will probably be at least just about as orderly as the right hon. Gentleman's was.
I was saying that I then posed the question in a longer letter to the Foreign Secretary; because, whether he believes it or not, I am just as passionately dedicated as he is to this question and have tried to help on successive occasions when I have gone out to Gibraltar and elsewhere. I saw a definite danger in our position as trustees, just in case our calculations and our advice might be wrong. Therefore, I sought to get from the right hon. Gentleman his interpretation of what would happen if the Court should go against us. Would the right hon. Gentleman then ignore the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, or would he not? He could have written a perfectly flat answer—"Yes" or "No"—to that, because this

is a question the House is entitled to ask. We cannot just accept his assumption that we shall win the case, however much we agree this is likely, because we have a responsibility towards others who are not directly parties to this litigation.
I wrote a letter and asked this perfectly fair question. Only today did I receive an answer to what was a perfectly simple question and one which could have been accorded a very quick reply, but it took nine days. I am glad that I received it before the debate. Here it is:
Thank you for your letter of 1st November about our proposal to the Spanish Government that the legal issues in dispute between us over Gibraltar should be referred to the International Court of Justice. I have nothing further to add to what I have said and will be saying in the House.
Naturally I came here, as I think we all did, wanting to know the answer to this question—what will be the outcome if the Foreign Secretary's calculations are wrong and if in fact the verdict, or some part of it, should go against us?
Only a couple of days ago at Question Time I asked the Foreign Secretary this supplementary question:
…is he really determined, if this matter does go to the International Court and if by any mischance the verdict should go against us, to hand over the people of Gibraltar to Spain, without consulting them as to their wishes?
The Foreign Secretary replied in this way:
To deal with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, it is obviously incompatible to say that one was willing to refer the matter to the International Court and then to lay down the verdict which one would accept.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) then asked:
Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that if the verdict goes against us he would be prepared to hand over Gibraltar to Spain, regardless of the wishes of its inhabitants? Is not that dealing with a free people as though they were a piece of property, rather like old-fashioned colonialism?
To which the right hon. Gentleman replied:
I must say that that question, coming from a distinguished lawyer, as well as a Privy Councillor, does make me wonder. That is not the sort of question one should deal with, in those terms, before going to a court of any kind, let alone the International Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 952–3.]


But that is exactly the sort of question with which we should be dealing. It is the only question with which we should be dealing: what will we do?
As I understand it, the only interpretation one can put upon what is happening—it is a most melancholy interpretation, and I wish it were otherwise—is that the message going from the House tonight is that, if the verdict should go against us, the people of Gibraltar will be handed over to the Government of Spain without their wishes being consulted. That is the only possible interpretation of the Foreign Secretary's answers and of what he said tonight, unless another Minister can give us another assurance later.
I can take this even further——

Mr. Archer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Sir F. Bennett: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I wish to put before the House a series of questions and answers, and I must maintain the sequence. I shall give way when I have finished this part of my speech.
Because I was distrustful of what was being done, I put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was in general terms because it was difficult to put one down in precise terms on the Gibraltar issue at this stage after so many Questions had been asked, with fruitless results. Two days ago, I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
to what extent the principle of self-determination of peoples enshrined in the United Nations Charter as to their future in the process of the decolonisation of the United Kingdom's remaining overseas dependencies still has application in the formulation of Her Majesty's Government's policies; and what exceptions are provided for.
I received a reply only an hour or so ago:
Her Majesty's Government's policy is in accordance with the United Nations Charter"—
and then come these words, which I ask the House to note—
It takes full cognisance of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, as of other relevant principles and obligations.
We are entitled to ask what are the other relevant principles and obligations which we must take into account as well as the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Are we saying that, because the matter has gone

to the International Court, we must abide by the outcome? As I see it, that can be the only message now. I would love to be proved wrong, and I hope that we shall have a definite assurance later tonight that I am wrong.

Mr. George Brown: May I put my question again to the hon. Gentleman? Clearly, he is against our referring the case to the International Court. If I have to spell it out in detail, the Spaniards have the landward side. What would the hon. Gentleman have us do?

Sir F. Bennett: This really is wasting time. I have said that I will come to what I would do in my concluding remarks. I am not dodging the point at all. I am trying to deal with the whole question in an orderly manner.
I come now to the International Court itself. Both in the House and in the country, we have a tendency to treat certain international bodies nowadays as sacred cows to which it is always wrong to refer in terms other than almost hushed praise. The International Court of Justice at The Hague is a great and august body, but it is right for us in the House of Commons, as we are trustees, to look at this court with fairly careful scrutiny, not just referring to it as the International Court of Justice and, therefore, beyond any question by the House. Only a few weeks ago, the International Court gave a verdict on the question of South-West Africa which, I am sure, not one hon. or right hon. Member thought that the Court would give. Whether we agreed with that verdict is immaterial now; what I am saying is that there can have been hardly anyone who believed in advance—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not—that that verdict would be given. This only goes to show how one can get unexpected verdicts.
Let us consider the composition of the International Court of Justice at the Hague, in which the Foreign Secretary puts absolute faith. What happened immediately after that decision on South-West Africa? The Polish judge got the sack. That was done by his country as a political decision. When the question of reappointing the judges came up only a few days ago, the Australian replacement was voted out; not only did the former Australian judge not carry on but his replacement was


voted out. There is no doubt about the reason; it was done because of the casting vote which the Australian judge had given in the unpopular political case of South-West Africa.
Whether we like it or not, it is not right to talk of the International Court, with its present composition, as though it were a court in the verdicts of which one can have blind and absolute faith. If I have not convinced all hon. Members here, let them consider for a moment the way the Court divided on the question of South-West Africa, packed as it was with racial tension. Which countries went one way and which the other? The casting vote for the actual decision of the court was Australian, and the remaining countries were Greece, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, South Africa, and Poland. We know what happened to the Polish judge. The countries opposed were Nationalist China, the Soviet Republic, Japan, the United States—the one exception in the list—Mexico, Senegal and Nigeria.
Need I say more? Do those lists of names mean nothing to hon. Members? Do they not carry a message that we ought to keep in mind when we as trustees represent people who are beneficiaries?

Mr. George Brown: Disgraceful.

Sir F. Bennett: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman regards this as disgraceful because, having set up his sacred cow in which he puts absolute faith and the future of the people of Gibraltar, he does not want its quality queried. But not one word I have said does not stand up to examination by anyone who cares to check.

Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman has on several occasions said that this country is a trustee. Is he advancing the thesis that a trustee should cling to the territory concerned even if that should transpire to be in defiance of international law?

Sir F. Bennett: There is no question of the trustee trying to cling to the territory. We are talking about the beneficiaries, the people who live on the Rock. The Rock cannot be regarded as a piece of territory. It happens to have an indigenous population living on it,

and I am reminding the House that we are trustees representing those people. I am not worried about a verdict on the Rock. We are talking about the people on the Rock. This is what hon. Members do not seem to understand.
I was asked by the Foreign Secretary what I would do, and I now come to that. We have offered to refer the matter to the Court, and I do not suggest that at this stage we could sensibly withdraw that offer. I would not have done it. I disagreed when the offer was made and have done my best to explain why. But the offer has been made, and the only outcome which will get the right hon. Gentleman off the hook on which he has impaled himself will be a refusal by the Spanish Government. I suspect that, when the right hon. Gentleman goes home to bed, that is the one result he hopes for.
But let us assume that Spain turns the offer down. Then what should we do? I go back to my original contention. We have done our best, in accordance with the wishes of the United Nations and otherwise, to reach agreement by negotiation. The right hon. Gentleman will accept that the negotiation has achieved nothing but failure. I do not blame him for what the Spanish Government have done. Every attempt by us to reach a conciliatory outcome has been greeted with fresh restrictions by the Spanish Government. We know that that has happened all along, but we have at least done our best.
If the Spanish Government now refuse to go to the Hague Court, we ought to suspend the talks and report to the United Nations that they have proved fruitless. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was always better to go on talking rather than stop. This is a very fine sentiment, but he has not conveyed it to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in another context in which time limits seem to be more the fashion. In this case, apparently, we can go on talking indefinitely. For my part, I would give a definite time limit or, rather, suspend the talks now because they have proved fruitless.
Second, we must give not just adequate aid to Gibraltar. I said this when I was out there and on television and radio. This is an occasion when we ought to show by a massive injection of capital


into the territory—not thinking in terms of £600,000 a year but in terms of a three-year, five-year or eight-year programme—that we have a real and determined interest in the people of Gibraltar. We must do this for one reason, if for no other. If the Spaniards were convinced that they could not trouble Gibraltar economically, this would be the best weapon that we could wield. We must not talk about aid just for this year. We must make it clear that we intend to put Gibraltar on its feet economically, whatever it costs. It will not cost very much. Some of the enterprises into which the present Government have entered overseas—and I do not wish to draw this matter into party conflict—are costing a great deal more than it would cost to put Gibraltar on its feet in a permanent sense. We could put Gibraltar permanently on its feet to the extent that it could not care less whether the Spanish had a blockade or not. This has happened elsewhere, and we can do it. Plenty of other dependencies are in that position, and there is no reason why Gibraltar should not be put in the position in which it does not have to depend on Spain.

Mr. George Brown: Will the hon. Member face the problem? I have said again and again and again that the people who live on what he chooses to call Gibraltar, which is the Rock, will be taken care of. Since he rejects my approach, will he tell us what he would do about the airfield, which is not on the Rock?

Sir F. Bennett: In the first place, I said that I would not have referred any of the issues in dispute to the Court, in which case I should not have referred the airfield. I would stay exactly where we are. I would suspend the talks, make an announcement of aid in a considerable form and stand on our rights. This would be much more effective in bringing about a solution than the havering in which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been indulging.
Finally, in this context, I would seek the co-operation of the Gibraltarians in bringing about a satisfactory constitutional future of that country which would take it out of the Anglo-Spanish cockpit for good and all, not only economically but politically. I am not talking about the

precise form of integration which should be adopted, but by one method or another it should be possible to achieve what the people of Gibraltar unanimously want—a relationship with this country which first of all economically puts them outside the capacity of Spain to menace and then politically puts them outside the capacity of Spain to menace.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: When my hon. Friend was out there did he discuss the possibility of Gibraltar becoming a constituency in the House of Commons and sending representatives here?

Sir F. Bennett: I did not discuss it because those who are so much in favour of integration do not give anyone much chance of discussing it. They do all the discussing. There is a very active pro-integration movement in Gibraltar which makes that point. I do not want to go into the detail of whether it should be on the lines of the Channel Islands or on new lines. We should not get bogged down in detail. There is a substantial view, not necessarily a majority, for full integration with a seat in the House of Commons.
If we do not go to the Court we should suspend the talks. We should make the Spaniards completely convinced by both our economic and our political actions that they will never get anywhere at all. In that event I am willing to make my own bet that this will bring about a speedier resolution of this dispute than many of us think possible at the present time.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeated vehemently on a number of occasions—only two minutes ago was the last time—that the people of Gibraltar will be looked after by Her Majesty's Government. Only two days ago this assurance was given by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary in answer to Questions when he said,
The people of Gibraltar are British and will remain British. Nothing can alter that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 243.]
Those on the surface are very satisfactory statements, but I should like them to go a little further. I should like the Foreign Secretary to say not only that


the people of Gibraltar will be adequately looked after but that they will be looked after in Gibraltar, not as emigrés living away from Gibraltar, with perhaps redundancy pay or compensation or disturbance pay as British subjects remaining British but living away from Gibraltar. If we can have the guarantee that they will continue to live and be looked after in their home territory of Gibraltar, I think that the whole House will be satisfied. But there are loopholes within those two statements, which, with all due respect to the views which have been put forward by the Foreign Secretary, need clarification.
I have read the White Paper very carefully—all 126 pages of it. The effect of it has been to confirm me in my previous opinion that the talks between the Government and the Spanish Government on Gibraltar have been a sheer waste of time. From beginning to end, it is obvious, the Spanish Government have set their demands for sovereignty over Gibraltar, and it is obvious that they did not budge from those demands. It is obvious that my right hon. Friend and his predecessor, and the Department generally, have been conducting the talks in what my right hon. Friend called a civilised manner but dealing with uncivilised people.
The arguments set out by the Spanish Government in paper after paper were obscured with "phoney" legal arguments, long, repetitive, involved and fine-sounding emotional phrases, not dealing with the question of Gibraltar and the people of Gibraltar. There are many attacks on colonialism and on Britain as a colonial Power without, as my right hon. Friend said, mentioning their own colonial obligations and their own colonial possessions, even those just across in Morocco.
They even made promises to the people of Gibraltar about the fine, prosperous future which they would enjoy once the Spanish flag was raised over the Rock. But what do these promises amount to? How much can we rely on the words of the present Spanish Government? How much truth could there be in those promises when we look at some of the things which they put into the documents which they laid at the talks with the Foreign Secretary? For example, they said in the early stages of the talks that

now that these discussions were taking place, Spain would abstain from any further measures against Gibraltar while the talks were going on, and then progressively more and more restrictions were placed upon the frontier of Gibraltar, upon the Gibraltarians, their travel into Spain and their trade.
They further said that the consent or otherwise of the Gibraltarians was completely irrelevant to the question of a settlement between Britain and Spain about Gibraltar. But surely the whole question is one of those people who are living on the Rock. It is not the bit of soil and the bit of rock and the harbour that matter. It is the welfare of the 20,000 or so people living there in freedom, under the British flag, free to have their political associations, to have their free elections, to have their free uncensored Press, to have the right of free meetings and of free trade unions—all the things that the Spaniards are denied under their present régime. It may be quite justifiable for the Spanish Government to promise to the people of Gibraltar all the blessings that they have given to their own people in Spain. In the opinion of the Spanish Government it may be highly unreasonable for the Gibraltarians to refuse to accept those privileges which the people have from their own Government.
They further say, as a point of argument, that all the Spanish people, whatever party they may favour, whatever point of view they may have, whatever class they belong to, are totally unanimous in the demand that Gibraltar should revert to Spain. That again is not true. There are many anti-Franco elements in Spain, some of them organised clandestinely, some of them fragmented and unable to organise very well because of the police State in which they live. But on 12th October, the Evening Standard had a long article about a student anti-Franco rally in Barcelona, attended by 5,000 students, accompanied by sympathetic members of the Catalonian intellectual community, 20 Roman Catholic priests and various university professors. Members of this free syndicate, which was formed in Barcelona, were asked by Jonathan Aitken, the Evening Standard reporter, for their views on Gibraltar. He reports:


They replied amidst general agreement: 'We are happy for Gibraltar to stay British, for it is of no use whatever to Spain. That is the view of the vast majority of young Spaniards. We know that Franco is just out to create trouble for Gibraltar in order to bolster up his own fading prestige'.
I have with me a letter from the General Secretary of the Catalan National Committee in which he says:
As Catalans, we wish to state our opinion on the Gibraltar problem".
He goes on to say that they have lived under Spanish dictatorship far too long and goes on:
As the Spanish régime cannot last for ever, we would rather prefer the Gibraltarian people keeping their personality as at present, and wait until the future Confederation of free Iberian Nations we aim at becomes a reality, when the Gibraltarians then can choose whether they prefer to form a part of it as an independent people, or remain as they are at present".
That is the opinion of a very large section of Northern Spain, Catalonia.
So it is throughout Spain. There are various groups of anti-Franco opinion, whatever their political views may be, who regard Gibraltar as an irrelevance in the present context. It is completely false for the contrary argument to be adduced by the Spanish Government in the White Paper. If the Spaniards have any doubt about it and want to prove to the world what they maintain to be the position, why do not they have a free election in Spain in order to show the world what the opinions of the Spanish people are? Furthermore, the Spanish Government offered to remove restrictions if we would remove the fence. That was immediately taken up and the offer was immediately withdrawn. So the good will of the Spanish Government was shown.
Perhaps the most interesting feature is the three pages of argument by the Spanish Government pointing to Spain's neutrality during the war—it uses the word "neutrality". On page 80 of the White Paper it says that this behaviour on its part during the war deserves a more serious consideration. If I may be allowed to take up the time of the House, I want to give it serious consideration.
It should not be forgotten that during the war Franco's Spain was not neutral. It started out as neutral, but the moment

Mussolini declared war Franco—Spain declared that it was no longer neutral but was a non-belligerant. I refer hon. Members to the memoirs of Lord Templewood, who was our ambassador in Spain during the war and who has set out his views of the history of those times in a book entitled, "Ambassador on Special Mission". It contains powerful arguments against the point of view which the Spanish Government has put forward in the White Paper.
For example, the Spanish Government quotes out of context from a letter which Churchill is supposed to have written thanking Franco for not having come into the war against us. It does not quote a further part of that letter in which he said:
But I also recall that throughout the war German influence in Spain has been consistently allowed to hinder the war effort of Great Britain and her Allies and it is a fact that a Spanish division was sent to help our German enemies against our Russian allies. During this period the Spanish Government publicly followed a policy not of neutrality, but of non-belligerence.
He went on to refer to numerous complaints put to the Spanish Government against its activities which were little in accordance with Spain's avowed neutrality and referred to repeated protests and complaints against its contemptuous references to Britain's defeat being desirable and inevitable. He ended his letter by saying that Spain would certainly not be admissible to any international organisations because of her behaviour during the war.
Published in this book also are confidential letters which passed between Franco, Hitler and Mussolini, 15 documents in all, which were discovered in Germany after Germany was occupied. These, according to Lord Templewood, proved
Franco's complete solidarity with the Axis, his carefully laid plans to intervene against the Allies if and when a really favourable opportunity arose, and his intrigue to obtain Gibraltar and Morocco and to close the Mediterranean to Great Britain.
But there was no honour among thieves and Franco, Hitler and Mussolini quarrelled among themselves, particularly because Franco knew very well that once he allowed German troops to occupy or enter Spain, he would find it very difficult to get rid of them. One of the documents


quotes a letter from Franco to Hitler in which he says:
The Spanish Government declares itself ready under certain conditions to give up its position as a non-belligerent state and to enter the war on the side of Germany and Italy.
There is a letter dated 22nd September, 1940, in which he wrote to Hitler saying:
I reply with the assurance of my unchangeable and sincere adherence to you personally, to the German people, and to the cause for which you fight.
Later on, when Hitler was worrying him as to why he had not come into the war against us and he was still dodging, on 26th February, 1941, he wrote to Hitler
in confirmation of my loyalty
as he said. It is a very interesting letter saying:
I consider as you do yourself that the destiny of history has united you with myself and with the Duce in an indissoluble way… I also share your opinion that the fact that Spain is situated on both shores of the Strait forces her to the utmost enmity towards England.
I want to dispel all shadow of doubt and declare that I stand ready at your side, entirely and decidedly at your disposal, united in a common historical destiny, desertion from which would mean my suicide and that of the cause which I have led and represent in Spain… I need no confirmation of my faith in the triumph of your cause and I repeat that I shall always be a loyal follower of it.
That is the expression of the neutrality of General Franco, on behalf of his Government and people, during the war when we fought for several hard years against Fascism.
It is a great pity that at the end of the war we did not cross the Pyrenees and end Fascism in Spain as we ended it in the rest of Europe. It is a great pity that we did not liberate the people of Spain from the oppression under which they had lived since 1938 and under which they are living today.
This shows that the White Paper is a record of lies, evasion, blackmail and threats against smaller Powers which is so typical of Fascist behaviour. Franco learned very well from his Fascist associates and we should have taken action when we had the power to do so.
What can we do now? Obviously we cannot invade Spain and liberate it, but I think that it is time to stop talking and to get down to action. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view

of the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) who queried why we, as the Power in possession, had taken this matter to an international court. I have never heard of a person who believes that he is right and who is in possession taking a matter to court. It is the claimant who takes the matter to court. We are not the claimants and nor are the people of Gibraltar. We stand on our rights and the people of Gibraltar stand on theirs. If Spain has any case to go to court, she, not us, should be the country which takes the matter to the International Court for decision.
The Foreign Secretary has said that he does not agree with imposing sanctions upon Spain. I disagree with him violently about this. The only way to resolve this matter is to break off the talks, say that we are not interested in discussions going on any longer because they are useless and, if Spain wants to take the matter to the International Court, then we will be pleased to attend and state our case. But, in the meantime, we should take diplomatic and economic sanctions against Spain, hit her where it hurts, even though in the loss of our trade it might hit us a little too.
It is very desirable that we should look back in history and remember what happened when a previous British Government handed over to a Fascist country the democratic people of Czechoslovakia and the infamy which accompanied that act. Do not let history repeat itself. Gibraltar is free and democratic. It is a British possession by the will of the people of Gibraltar and we should take every possible step to see that it remains so. If Spain wishes to take the matter to court let her do so—we should take action against Spain now.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: Both last summer and this summer my wife and I went to Gibraltar as ordinary private individuals. In meeting the ordinary private people of Gibraltar I found a very different attitude from that described by the Foreign Secretary. They were disturbed and bitter and thought that they had been let down by the British Government. They have been waiting for so long to hear from the British Government a categoric assurance about their future. We know that during the summer


we have been going backwards and forwards in this House trying to get that categoric assurance. Could we get it? We have completely and utterly failed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been waffling about this for far too long. The people of Gibraltar want this categoric assurance that they will remain British, that the Rock will remain British and that their homes will remain British. I know that we are all very pleased, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, that, belatedly, the British Government have awarded help to the sum of £600,000. I should like to repeat what my right hon. Friend said and ask for a positive assurance from the Government that any future aid required will be made available. We do not want a nebulous answer that it may be there. Will it definitely be there? This is what the people of Gibraltar need.
Gibraltar, even with this blockade, can stand on her own feet and can be made viable, provided that something is done. It is a tragedy that the barrier is closed and that there is not free access to and from the Rock, but we have to accept the facts. When I was there, I think it was the Housewives League, or an organisation of a similar name, which did a magnificent job when the women from Spain were refused entry to Gibraltar. They really got down to it and kept the hotels and other places going. There is a great future, even with the limited amount of space, for tourism. It would be much easier if there were free access to and from Spain but if that is to be denied, there is still access to North Africa, to Morocco which is only a very short way across the sea. There is the "Mons Calpe", the Bland Line ferry, which takes cars across and is making journeys every day. In addition there is a hydrofoil which does the journey very rapidly, and if money were made available these sorts of tourist facilities could easily be developed.
I entirely agree that we need to build new hotels there. There is a certain amount of hotel accommodation, but certainly not enough. If Franco goes even further and stops the 6,000 Spanish workers coming in every day it would create a great problem for the people on the Rock. It would be a great pity, because a lot of the Spaniards who work

there during the day are very good workers and like coming to the Rock. If they are to be shut out we must provide some alternative.
When I was there there was a certain amount of talk about bringing people over from Morocco. They would have to be accommodated. Can the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State say what thought has been given to this? At one time it was suggested that old liners might be brought in. We do not have the same heat problems which we had in the Far East, when air conditioning was necessary. Has this been thought of? Has thought been given to the possible utilisation of some of the Service barracks which are now being evacuated? There is a good bit of land, not far from the airport, where a certain amount of building has already started. Will that be completed. I believe that it was not completed because of lack of finance. Are the Government prepared to help here?
I will not go into the question of the legal side of the Treaty of Utrecht. It is completely sacrosanct. We have to consider the people who have lived there for 200 years. They are not Spanish; they are Gibraltarians—a mixture of races who have through the centuries come in and lived there. Above all they are British and we must see that they remain so. I too am rather frightened of the idea of taking this case to the International Court, for the reasons which have already been put forward. There is another point. This Court does not do its work in five minutes. It takes a long time. I am told that it could be up to two and a half years before the Court reached a decision. What are the people of Gibraltar to do during those two years?
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Foreign Secretary in particular, made great play about the frigates. It is perfectly true that Spain was to buy some frigates from us and to have a naval exercise, which was cancelled. The Spaniards are a very proud people and they do not like the sort of treatment which was handed out by Members opposite. I spoke to people out there and they were under the impression that had there been, which unfortunately there was not, a change of Government in Britain last year, there might have been a very


different attitude on the part of Franco over this question.
Page 43 of Cmd. 3131, headed "Use of the Gibraltar Airfield and the Port and Waters of Gibraltar", states:
Her Majesty's Government are ready in principle to agree that in time of peace and subject to British operational requirements, Spanish military aircraft should put down at and make use of facilities at Gibraltar airfield and Spanish naval vessels should make use of berthing and repair facilities in the naval dockyard and harbour of Gibraltar.
It would appear that, provided that the frigates are not British-built, not sold to Spain by Britain, anyone can come in and may well come in. This is the Socialist attitude, these are Socialist proposals.
The Secretary of State, when he replies to the debate, should admit that it was a stupid move by Her Majesty's Government to deny Spain the possibility of buying frigates from us.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting, is he, that the Spanish Government would not be making a claim to Gibraltar if it were not for this issue of the frigates?

Mr. Dance: I am not saying that. But this is a proud nation, and the insults which the people in Gibraltar have received from hon. Members opposite have certainly not helped the situation there.
I conclude as I started. Having met these people and known them, and known how friendly and very courageous they have been in difficult circumstances during the past years, I ask the Secretary of State, as I asked the Foreign Secretary last week, whether he will give them a positive assurance as to their future and an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not give way to Spanish threats.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Dealing with the legal, position of Gibraltar, I feel that this country is in the position of being a complainant against Spain. I think that we have every right to refer the matter to the International Court, and I have every conviction that the judgment will go in our favour. Clearly, prior to the case being heard, we cannot state what we

would do should the case not go in our favour. No person with any acquaintance of the law would accept or expect that kind of action. But if we did not refer it to the International Court, then, in view of the present actions of the Spanish Government, we should have to consider what physical action we should take against them. This is giving the Spanish Government an opportunity to back away from their present position over the period of the reference of the case to the International Court.
I entirely agree with the Foreign Secretary that it is a difficult position to get into to be threatening retaliation at each stage of the story of Gibraltar. We must remember that were we to take physical action against Spanish property or Spanish territory it could easily be used by Franco-Spain to whip up the loyalty of the Spanish people behind the present Fascist régime.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger), who said that the vast majority of young Spaniards are not concerned with claiming Gibraltar or with annexing the Rock. But should we engage in hasty, irresponsible action in a physical fashion against the Spaniards, we might find Franco-Spain pulling in the whole population behind it. But I do not believe that we can continue indefinitely with the Spanish pressures exercised against the border. I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government should give a public ultimatum to the Spaniards. However, at this stage, when the question of the reference of the case to the International Court is before us, we should make it clear that any further escalation of action by the Spaniards would mean the ending of any possibility of a legal settlement. We would then have to consider physical action.
We should make it clear to the Spanish Government that should they obstruct the landing of our aircraft on the airstrip at Gibraltar, or should there be a recurrence of physical violence against British property in Spain, certain consequences would follow. That should be made clear in confidential communiqués to the Spanish. We should have to consider certain retaliatory action if, for instance, our aircraft were banned from flying into Gibraltar. No Spanish aircraft should then be allowed to fly into this country. We need to keep a very delicate balance


between not clumsily threatening the Spanish all along the line and giving the impression to the Spanish that whatever they do to us we will in no circumstances retaliate.
In the meantime, the best place for this dispute is the International Court. I cannot believe that a single hon. Member has the slightest doubt about how the case will go and, having gone in our favour, that our title will be unchallenged and acknowledged throughout the world.
I turn briefly to what I think are one or two constructive points. One can talk in terms of the domestic situation in Gibraltar. We must concentrate on one simple factor, namely, to help the people of Gibraltar to realise that they have reached a definite and positive stage, which is that never again will they be dependent on Spanish territorial supplies and never again will they lay themselves open to such blackmail as has been exercised by the Spanish Government recently.
The next few years will be a difficult time for the people of Gibraltar. I am confident that our aid of £600,000 will be increased as and where necessary. We must, in our relations with the people of Gibraltar, emphasise the positive side. We want no more nostalgia about afternoon trips to the La Linea area for polo. We want no more feelings about hanging on to see whether the taxi service can be resumed. Together with the people of Gibraltar we can make the Rock a viable territory. It is our job, the two peoples in partnership, to create that viability during the next few years. But, if we are to do this, it is vital that we should leave aside the legal international question of sovereignty, about which I have not the slightest doubt, and concentrate on practical measures.
Reference has been made to Spanish labour, which is now 6,000, having dropped from 9,000. I, too, pay tribute to the housewives of Gibraltar who in their own kind of modern Dunkirk showed that the Spanish would merely lose £250,000 through their actions. But we should be pushing ahead so that we are ready for the end of Spanish labour altogether. Not only Morocco but Portugal can help here. I acknowledge that Her Majesty's Government would not be wise to make any revelation of fore-

planning labour from Tangier because of the way in which General Franco might take propaganda advantage of it. But we do not want in a year or two a sudden collapse because of further blackmail action over labour from Spain. I feel desperately sorry for the people of the Campo area and La Linea, who are innocent victims of the latter-day ambitions of General Franco. But we must put the people of Gibraltar first in our concern.
Secondly, in terms of domestic action, reference has been made to tourism. When I was in Gibraltar in September I was very pleased to find that B.E.A. flights were full up two or three weeks ahead. Next year B.E.A. must make much more elaborate plans for aircraft arriving in Gibraltar. I hope that Thomas Cook, for example, will be able to arrange many more package deals, with five or six days in Gibraltar and then a holiday in North Africa. These are constructive suggestions. B.E.A. made a mistake last year by cutting down air flights to Gibraltar. We should expect B.E.A., belonging to the nation, to cooperate. Clearly there is profit to be made out of this as well.
I hope that we shall have more work on commercial ship repairing. We are going to have an accelerated housing programme. We need to have a much more rapid clearing away of the old Army barracks which clutter up the modern picture of Gilbraltar. If those things are done, Gibraltar can be a prosperous, viable territory by 1970.
It is the most effective democracy in the Mediterranean. It mirrors our life and our ambitions. No judgment in the International Court, short of a total travesty, could do anything other than recognise that.
With the accelerated economic aid which is now promised, this next period must be a new chapter in Gibraltar, turning its back on the vicissitudes of Spanish relationships and making itself a new modern independent city State within the Mediterranean.

8.10 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: With unprecedented arrogance and discourtesy, the Foreign Secretary said that he was not here to speak to back benchers. Fortunately, that does not rob back


benchers of the right, which is protected by the Speaker, to speak to him in this House, whatever his eminence, when he happens to have the patience to stay here and listen to back benchers.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): What my right hon. Friend said in that particular passage was——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time. Is the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) giving way?

Sir G. Sinclair: No, I am sorry, I am not. I have a note of what the Foreign Secretary said, and I am prepared to rest on what he is reported to have said in HANSARD.
At the outset, I should like to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said about the need for friendship between Britain and the people of Spain. That does not mean that we should sacrifice our friends in Gibraltar to stark blackmail by the Government of Spain.
Why have Her Majesty's Government, by their vacillating and weak attitude, put the people of Gibraltar to months of distress, anxiety and financial hardship? I know, from letters which I have just received, that their anxieties have been assuaged somewhat by declarations made in the last two weeks and by the visit of the Colonial Secretary.
I am bound to say, however, that these reassurances were made only in reaction to attacks on the Government from this side of the House, and a promise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet would visit Gibraltar to assess what the people there needed to relieve their anxiety and to offset the economic results of a mounting blockade by Spain.
It is only since our attack on the Government that any reassuring statements have been made on the two vital issues of sovereignty and economic aid.
On the issue of sovereignty, the Government have at last said openly that they are confident in our rights not only to the Rock itself but also to the Isthmus area, including the airfield, over which our sovereignty has remained unchallenged since 1838.
Why, then, refer the whole question of sovereignty to the International Court? That seems to be a very wet course if we are confident in our rights. It is also a dishonourable course in view of our political obligations to the 25,000 people of Gibraltar. They, at least, have expressed vigorously to the United Nations and the outside world their determination to remain under British sovereignty. This reference is indeed a disgraceful and despicable retreat from trusteeship.
No doubt it was respect for those clearly expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar which led to the United Nations to limit their request to Britain and merely to ask us to talk over with Spain the differences between us about Gibraltar. The United Nations did not urge our Government to take the matter to the International Court.
What have the Government done? They have undertaken a series of talks with Spain, from which it has become plain that what Spain is claiming is a return of sovereignty over Gibraltar. Once it was clear that Spain would be content only with a transfer of sovereignty, I suggest—and here I agree with several of my hon. Friends and one or two hon. Members opposite—that the only right course was to reject that claim and let the United Nations know what we had done to meet any justifiable complaints from Spain on the basis of our retaining sovereignty over the areas which we now administer.
We should have told the United Nations that Spain was interested only in a transfer of sovereignty and that we were not prepared to consider it, not only because of our rights but also because of our obligations to the people of Gibraltar. I believe that the Government's decision to refer the matter of our sovereignty to the International Court is wrong and is regarded by many people in Gibraltar as putting their fate in jeopardy, as if they were disposable chattels.
The Foreign Secretary said that, as part of his policy of referring all our external legal issues to the United Nations or to its agencies, Gibraltar was a good case with which to start, and that the elected Ministers in Gibraltar supported that action. But they had no option; they had to lump it. They were excluded from the talks with Spain. The


Ministers did not welcome this step. The people of Gibraltar are anxious to know why they should now be faced with the threat of a possible legal action in the International Court lasting for several years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) warned us.
Gibraltar has been facing economic siege of increasing severity for many months, and it is only now that the Government have promised aid on a substantial scale. If the Government had acted earlier to show their confidence in our sovereignty and their determination to see that the people of Gibraltar did not suffer through a disagreement between ourselves and Spain, they would have relieved the people of Gibraltar of anxiety and might well have discouraged Spain from her adventure—an adventure aimed to see how far she could succeed in dislodging Britain from the Rock. Such a course, taken earlier, might have done something to check Spain's development of her blockade.
I turn now to the scale of aid proposed. To make up for all the anxiety and economic hardship which the Government have allowed to develop in Gibraltar, would they commit themselves to helping the people of Gibraltar to develop their natural assets, enable them as soon as possible to pay their way and further improve their standards of living? I doubt whether the sums already committed go anywhere near achieving that aim.
The people of Gibraltar are our friends. They have stood by us through good and bad times. They have kept close together with us, and I hope that we shall continue to keep close to them. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give the assurance sought by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) that this help will be granted to the people of Gibraltar in Gibraltar, and not in some other place to which they might have been moved.
Let us not hear from the Government that they cannot afford aid on the scale required. The only thing which this country cannot afford is several years more of the mismanagement of the economy of which this Government have been guilty.
We are certainly strong enough—and I hope that the Minister will agree with this—to assist this small but vigorous and friendly community in Gibraltar to develop very quickly in the new circumstances brought upon them by Spain. The new circumstances are that they are living on a small peninsular of a few square miles, now cut off economically from Spain with which there has been fruitful economic exchange for centuries. We have to help them get used to this and live with this new situation. We should make our determination crystal clear. I hope that such a determination will deter Spain from intensifying her harassment of Gibraltar by interference with access by sea and air from outside Spain. I know that this is a main anxiety among some of the leading people in Gibraltar today.
In view of the intransigence which Spain has shown in her measures against Gibraltar, and the risk of further measures, will the Government now press forward with contingency planning to help Gibraltar, if her economy is further threatened by any attempts to dislocate sea and air access?

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: The time of the House is becoming limited, and if some of my assertions are made even more eliptical than usual, I hope it will not be thought that I could not develop them further, given more time.
There appear to be three questions which are not likely to divide the House, and heaven knows the greater the area of agreement in this House and in the country on this topic the better.
The first is that we are all clearly agreed that Spain will not advance her cause by acts of piracy and banditry on the frontier. We cannot prevent her doing some economic damage to the inhabitants of Gibraltar, but we can ensure that it does not get her one inch nearer to her goal, and on that there does not appear to be anything between us.
Secondly, we need not waste time in debating the merits of the Spanish case in law. I have studied with great care the statement made by the Spanish Foreign Secretary on 18th May, and if it is pruned of the repeated assertions that Spain feels strongly about it, it boils down


to the fact that Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht imposes certain limitations on the British occupation of Gibraltar, and that from time to time Britain has been in breach of those obligations. Not one of those allegations will stand up to examination. Some of them were dealt with by my right hon. Friend. All of them were dealt with in detail in the British reply of 21st July. But even if every one of them had been proved true up to the hilt, I know of no principle in international law which states that if one party to a treaty asserts rights which go a little beyond what the treaty confers, that in some way invalidates the treaty. We do not have to worry about the legal weight of the Spanish case.
The third matter on which, again, surely we are not divided is the rejection of the Spanish argument that the people of Gibraltar are not entitled to be consulted because they were not a party to the Treaty of Utrecht, they have been there only since 1727, and they earn their living by buying and selling. Surely no one in this House subscribes to that doctrine, and here again we are entirely at one in saying that the principle of self-determination applies to the people of Gibraltar. The Spanish argument might perhaps have been a little stronger if the very people about whom they were talking were not the victims of the pressure by which they have attempted to advance their cause. Surely where pressure is applied, this in itself gives the victims a right to be heard?
If I may say so without appearing ungenerous, perhaps many of us would have been happier if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had been equally unreserved in their approbation of the principle of self-determination on previous occasions. There have been occasions when we have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about giving away the Empire, but perhaps all of us, and I include my hon. Friends, would do well to remember that we cannot assert the principles of self-determination where it pleases our book where someone is asking to remain within the Commonwealth, and reject it where it does not because the people are not asking for that. If the principle of self-determination' applies to Gibraltar, it applies to China, to South Vietnam, and to Ireland.
Where I think we are differing is on the question of what happens if there is

a conflict between two principles which I am sure everyone in the House holds dearly, the principle of self-determination, and the principle of the rule of international law. When the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) opened this debate, he came very near to putting his finger on the essential dispute, because, however either side of the House attempts to evade the issue, we may still have a situation in which these two principles conflict.
I do not believe that this will be such a situation. I believe that if the rule of law is applied, it will be found that the claim of the United Kingdom is upheld, and this is precisely what the principle of self-determination would dictate. But we might have a situation—and, of course, no one can predict with certainty—in which it was held that, as a matter of law, the United Kingdom should give up its claim to Gibraltar. If that were to happen, the question would arise, what should be the attitude of the United Kingdom?
We would clearly, logically, be in the position that we would have to sacrifice one or other of these principles. We do not evade the issue by saying that the matter should not have been referred to the International Court at all. Whether it should or not, the question with which we are confronted is whether we are prepared to adhere to the rule of law or not.
As I understand it, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have given an answer to that question. They have said that, even if it transpires to be contrary to the rule of law, even if international law is against us, in defiance of international law, we should retain our hold on Gibraltar. As I understand it, that is their position, and if I am wrong I shall be grateful if whoever replies for the Opposition will make the position clear.
On two occasions it has been suggested that possibly it is not quite so bad in law if one is a trustee. I know of no principle in either municipal or international law which says that a trustee, on behalf of his beneficiaries, is entitled to act in defiance of the law. If the law is against us the principle of the rule of law demands that we should give up Gibraltar.
I face this difficulty squarely, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary faced it earlier. The answer is that if we are driven to face this conflict between two principles—which heaven forbid—our allegiance should be to the rule of law. At the end of the war, when the United Nations was set up, it was felt that here was a body which would ensure the resolving of international disputes, so that we could have negotiations, discuss our difficulties round a table, and, if that failed, refer the matter to international arbitration. There was to be an end of the old jungle system of, "They should grab who have the power; they should keep who can." It was to be the end of the danger of economic battles and local wars which might escalate. It was to be a new civilisation.
Where has all that gone now? I am happy to think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not always taken the attitude to this matter which they appeared to take tonight——

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Doubtless the hon. Member is aware that although we were awarded damages from the International Court in respect of two of our destroyers which had been illegally mined by Albania, we are still waiting for the damages to be paid.

Mr. Archer: I agree that other Powers have not necessarily accepted the jurisdiction or the decisions of the International Court. The Corfu Channel case, to which the hon. Member has just referred, is a case in point. We have never ceased to condemn Albania for her failure to observe the rule. But this country has a fine record. In the Norwegian fisheries case and in a number of others we have set an example which has been the pride of the world.
In the past hon. Members opposite have adopted an attitude rather at variance from that which they have expressed today. Sir Winston Churchill, in July 1957, said:
Justice cannot be a hit and miss system. We cannot be content with an arrangement where our new system of international laws applies only to those who are willing to keep them.
On 27th November, 1963, the then Foreign Secretary—now Lord Butler—

referring to the decision to alter Reservation 6, said:
In taking this step, Her Majesty's Government are showing in a practical way the support which they have always given to the maintenance of the rule of law in international affairs through the International Court of Justice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 87.]
One cannot be a believer in the rule of law just when it happens to be attractive. A man who does not eat meat except when the joint looks particularly succulent is not a vegetarian. A man who does not believe in war except when he thinks he can win is not a pacifist, and a man who is not prepared to accept the rules of international law except when they accord with his case is not a believer in the rule of law.

Mr. John Page: I have been listening to the hon. Member's case with the greatest care. He talked about the prime importance of self-determination. If he believes in that, does he feel that it must be an error that there should be a choice either between self-determination for a people or, as he says, accepting the rule of law? Does he feel that, because of this, this case should never have been offered to the International Court?

Mr. Archer: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have said that I do not believe that in this case there is likely to be that conflict. I was going on to refer to some remarks made by the right hon. Member for Barnet a few moments ago, when he expressed the view that the International Court of Justice would not be entitled to consider the principle of self-determination in this case. That is debatable. I do not believe that the rule of international law should say artificially that the International Court of Justice is necessarily compelled to ignore the wishes of the people involved. If, however, it transpires that I am wrong in this, I would have thought that the answer was not to ignore the rule of law in this case but to attempt to get it changed. This is basically the issue that we are fighting.
Before I take the matter further I should point out that I have given what I hope is at least an unequivocal answer. It is my answer, and some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may disagree with


it. If the unlikely were to transpire and it were to be ruled by the International Court of Justice that Spain's claim to Gibraltar was justified I certainly would not consider that it followed that we should be compelled to abandon the people of Gibraltar to live under a régime of which they heartily disapproved. But it would entail the hardship of their having to be resettled elsewhere, and I hope that in that eventuality the Government would give them every possible assistance to ensure that they were settled as happily as possible. That could happen, and I must face the possibility squarely.
We are confronted with this possible conflict and this possible result. It is an unlikely event, and one which none of us would like to see happen. But basically we have to make up our minds—if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are pressing us on this point—one way or the other, which would be the major principle to uphold if that conflict arose. In my submission, every consideration of peace, every consideration of humanity, and every consideration of international civilisation would dictate that the major consideration should be given to the rule of law.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I am sorry that the representatives of the Liberal Party have been so conspicuous by their absence during this debate, in contrast to their conspicuous presence earlier in the afternoon. I am sure that that well-known anti-imperialist, Mr. Gladstone, would have been disappointed during this debate, since he was responsible for building the main part of the harbour at Gibraltar in the 1890s.
An hon. Member opposite intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) to ask whether my hon. Friend was claiming that, if there were a Conservative Government in Britain, the Spaniards would have abandoned their claim to Gibraltar. I am sure that my hon. Friend was not putting forward that argument, which I do not believe would be tenable.
The Spanish claim to Gibraltar has existed for 250 years and they will not abandon it now. The question is quite a different one. It is, how hard do they push their claim? They will not abandon it. I think it is clear that, if there

were a Conservative Government and had been for the last two years, they would not have been pushing their claim in the way in which they have——

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that therefore, because the Spanish have this claim, we should adopt a cowardly attitude towards them?

Mr. Blaker: I do not think that my words would bear that interpretation. I would argue exactly the opposite—that we should adopt a robust attitude towards them. Indeed, had we been robust, the claim would not have got near the present stage. It has existed for 250 years, for most of which it has been dormant. The times that it has been pushed were the times when Spain had the impression that Britain was weak.
Spain has been pushing her claim since November, 1964. The party opposite has been in power since October, 1964. Is that a coincidence? The Spanish have stepped up their claim, month by month, since November, 1964. Have I made myself clear now?
I believe that the reason that Spain has stepped up her pressure since the autumn of 1964 is the behaviour of Her Majesty's Government. I can best sum up what I think of that behaviour by saying that it has been a combination of insults and weakness. I can imagine no combination more calculated to make a mess of the Gibraltar problem than those two things——

Mr. John Page: Misbehaviour.

Mr. Blaker: The frigate question is an example, and the extravagant language of the then Leader of the Opposition in the summer of 1964 about the frigate question was a contributory factor. I believe that the cancellation by the Prime Minister within a week of the 1964 election, of the naval manoeuvres with Spain was another insult. That insult was more serious even than the frigate question, because it was a direct insult to the pride of the Spaniards. Only one nation is more proud and stubborn than the Spanish and that is the English. This is something which the Government have entirely neglected.
A third example of insults is the repeated references by hon. Members


opposite—perhaps not so surprising from the back benches but it is surprising from the Front Benches—to a "Fascist dictatorship"——

Mr. Palmer: So it is.

Mr. Blaker: Indeed it is, but do we have to talk about it all the time? Do hon. Members opposite base their language about the Soviet Union on the use of the words "Communist dictatorship" all the time? Would that help our relations with the Soviet Union? I do not think that it would. I do not think that such language is necessary, even though I do not like the régime in the Soviet Union.
I said that the second leg of the Government's attitude towards Spain had been weakness. We have only to remember the extraordinarily flabby statements made in this House in the last few months by the former Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the present Colonial Secretary. We have only to remember the fact that, after insisting, with an appearance of great firmness, that we would not negotiate under duress, the Government did precisely that. What impression do hon. Gentlemen opposite think that that gives to a country like Spain, which wants to take over Gibraltar? Do they think that the Spaniards attach no significance to the fact that, after taking up that apparently firm position, Her Majesty's Government then turned and ran for cover? In the context of the history of the last 250 years and in the context of the fact that Spain has pressed her claim when Britain has appeared weak, is not that sort of behaviour a positive invitation to the Spaniards, when they are on the rampage, to step up their pressure?
We had another interesting example this afternoon of what I believe is the fundamental weakness of the Government on this question. Among a number of extraordinary passages in the speech of the Foreign Secretary, one was particularly extraordinary when, in a plaintive voice, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Gibraltar case was presented by Spain as a great anti-Colonial crusade on the part of Spain. In a querulous voice, the right hon. Gentleman ask why Spain seemed to have so much support at the

United Nations when that country had such a bad colonial record.
Our policies and case since 15th October, 1964, have been presented at the United Nations by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Could it be that they have a guilt complex, which comes out in the presentation of their case at the United Nations? This afternoon we had an apparently spontaneous remark from the Foreign Secretary when he said, in effect, "I have fought against colonialism all my life". That came from the heart, did it not? Could the fact that Spain has been so successful at the United Nations in the last two years in putting over what ought to be a weak case compared with ours have something to do with the spontaneous statement by the right hon. Gentleman? I leave that question to the House.
I want the Colonial Secretary to deal with two important questions and to reassure the House that the Government have not been as weak on them as they have been in other respects. These questions concern the terms under which they are proposing to refer the matter to the International Court. First—and this question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove—as it will take probably two years, perhaps longer, to get a decision from the International Court, if the Spaniards accept the reference to it, what will happen between the time of their acceptance and the decision of the Court? Is our proposal for a reference to the Court made on the understanding there will be no harassment of Gibraltar by Spain during that time; and, if not, why not?
Secondly, what will happen if the decision goes in our favour? Various comments have been made about what might happen if the decision goes against us. What about the situation if the decision goes in our favour? If Spain accepts the reference and if, as we hope and believe, the decision is in our favour, is there any understanding, any condition, in the proposal which the Government have put to Spain, which would oblige Spain in that event to stop harrassing Gibraltar? If there is not, if the matter goes to the Court and the decision is in our favour, and then Spain is free to resume her harrassment, hon. Members opposite will look even sillier than they have looked in the last few months.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Earlier in the debate some bizarre cohesion appeared to be developing between the two back benches, with crude nationalism on one side and anti-Fascism on the other side. This problem must be dealt with in rather more fundamental terms than appeals simply to sovereignty or to anti-Fascism.
The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) criticised the Government for negoiating under duress. It is true that pressure has been put on this country to negotiate, but it has been put by the United Nations, and it is important in the debate to recognise that fact and to take account of it in our thinking and in trying to arrive at a sound policy. The present conversations arose from a Resolution of the General Assembly passed on 16th December, 1965, which is clearly set out in the White Paper.
But behind that Resolution, as it clearly says, lies the report of the Committee of 24, a committee at the United Nations concerned with problems of colonialism throughout the world. The existence of this Committee and the tenor of its reports reflects the very deep concern of the United Nations about the whole question of colonialism throughout the world.
We may dislike or be embarrassed by or perhaps on occasion be opposed to the anti-colonial feelings, actions and sentiments of the United Nations, but we have to accept that they are there and that they are genuine, and what is more, we must accept that they represent a trend of feeling, an attitude to world policies and developments, which we cannot resist and which we should be most unwise, in our own interests, to attempt to resist.
It is ironic that only today there are reports of an attack on Spanish colonialism, and I am glad that the Spanish record in colonialism matters is now being put under the microscope and fully examined by the world Assembly. This may result in a modification of the Spanish attitude on the present conversations.
But the fact remains that at the back of the present dispute and behind the problem of Gibraltar, however one approaches it, lies this world feeling that colonies no longer have a justification in

the present-day world. For this reason I welcome the Foreign Secretary's action in referring the matter in the first instance to the International Court to settle, beyond dispute, the legal rights and the legal position of the people concerned in this argument, because these must be settled beyond any doubt before any sensible progress can be made in this matter.
An hon. Member opposite made the point that even if we achieve a judgment from the International Court which is fully satisfactory to us in the legal sense, a problem will still remain, and I believe that he is right.
We have to remember that no one ever challenged our legal title to great territories in Africa and Asia which we held 30 years ago; but we did not find it possible purely on the basis of undisputed legal title to continue to govern the land and the people of those territories. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, over a period of two decades we have relinquished sovereignty over 700 million people and vast territories in Asia and Africa.
I therefore believe that following the reference to the International Court, it must be a cardinal aim of our policy to justify our position in Gibraltar to the United Nations and to ensure that the status of the territory and of the people is made fully acceptable to world opinion. This may mean some kind of modification of the existing situation.
What it means, I am sure, is inviting the United Nations in asking its agencies to join with us in an examination of the problems of Gibraltar and its people, problems both territorial, social, economic and democratic, so that the member States of the United Nations, and, above all, the Members of the Committee of 24, may be thoroughly and obsolutely conversant with the problems that are there, so that when we go beyond the legal question to a political solution which eventually must lie beyond the legal settlement, the United Nations and the other peoples of the world recognise fully our position and that we for our part are prepared to create the situation, or to adjust the situation, so that it becomes accepable to world opinion and to the opinion of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made an interesting remark when he said that it cannot be honourable to be a colonial Power. That remark would arouse widely sympathetic echoes within the United Nations, but in those parts of the world where we are still a colonial Power it carries the implication that we may have to make adjustments—political, social, economic and military—to take account of the fact that my right hon. Friend and, I think, most of us no longer regard is as an honourable position to hold people or a territory as a colony.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: In the few minutes available to me, I should like to say how glad I am that at the end of the month I shall be going to Gibraltar on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation and I hope to come back knowing much more at first hand about its problems.
Without doubt, the great weakness of the International Court is that it cannot take into consideration the wishes of the people of the territory concerned. The latest example of this is the judgment given in the case of South-West Africa, where the wishes of the inhabitants were regarded as being totally irrelevant to the judgment.
I regard the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as the most important single aspect. Backed up behind that comes the undeniable right of British sovereignty. Spain's only original right to the territory was the right of conquest. By that same right she lost the territory to Great Britain, which has now held sway of sovereignty for longer than Spain did. The Treaty of Utrech is over and in addition to it. There have, of course, been various violations of it. Jews have been allowed to practise their religion in church, which is contrary to the Treaty. If anybody thinks that because of that the territory should revert to Spain, the processes of justice have no justice in them. Certainly, to hand the case to the International Court of Justice knowing that it is not permitted to consider or to adjudicate on the basis of the wishes of the people is to hand it over under conditions which are unacceptable to us as the trustees for that ter-

ritory, and I hope very much indeed that these are considerations which will not be absent from our mind when we debate the future of Gibraltar.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: In the very few minutes available to me I should like to have another look at this problem from a somewhat different point of view. We all welcome the stand which the Government have taken, and the financial help they are giving to Gibraltar, but the thing I have been concerned about is the absence of forward-looking which seems to have prevailed on both sides of the House in this debate. I have felt that no real, permanent solutions to the problem have been put forward, and I would once again suggest that, in view of the Spanish pressure, it may be time for us to consider possible constitutional changes in Gibraltar.
I have no doubt that the Colonial Secretary has seen my Question for Tuesday, about the possibility of giving to Gibraltar a British county status. I am making this as a serious suggestion, because this above everything else would give the Gibraltarians a sense of absolute and permanent association with the British people. In many ways I think that this would be an ideal type of solution to Gibraltar's problems. There could be a county council in Gibraltar, and a representative from Gibraltar here at Westminster. He would not, I think, affect the balance in this House in any way. He would, at least, represent in this Chamber the feelings of the people of Gibraltar.
I feel that this has enormous advantage over some types of representation we have here nowadays—for example, the representation from Northern Ireland, which governs without the governed. There would be nothing of that type in a case of such a unit as this in Gibraltar.
Further, I think the real reason for putting forward this argument is that there is little doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people of Gibraltar support such a move. Many hon. Members will know the work of Major Peliza, who carried out an inquiry, and what he found, having asked something over half the electorate, was simply this, that the overwhelming majority of those whom


he asked were all for close unity with Britain.
This is not a case of the continuance of imperialism or the continuance of colonialism. It is anti-imperialistic in every sense of the word, because my suggestion is not based on putting something in Gibraltar against the will of the people there; it is putting in Gibraltar something which fulfils the will of the Gibraltarians. There are 25,000 of them, which compares with the population of some English counties, such as Rutland, and of several Welsh counties. The majority of the 25,000 people are British in every sense of the word. Only some 2,000 of them are aliens, including all the Spanish population. I think that this is really the type of permanent solution which could apply to this territory.
There are not many administrative difficulties because, for instance, the educational system already fits into the British system, and there are in Gibraltar many social conditions which are in parallel with those in Britain. There are certain difficulties, particularly on the taxation side, because at the moment a great deal of the revenue of Gibraltar—about £800,000, I think—comes from the Customs side. There would be difficulties if they became integrated fully with Britain in this way, but there are possibilities that we could have this integration without affecting the tax system. I think the Americans have done something of the sort in Puerto Rico. But even assuming that they had to face this choice—on the one hand of highly-taxed Britain and, on the other, of Fascist Spain—I have no doubt what the choice of the Gibraltarians would be. From some of the remarks we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am doubtful about what their choice would be, but so far as the Gibraltarians are concerned, I have no doubt at all that if they had to choose between Fascist Spain or highly-taxed Britain, they would come to Britain every time.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I must apologise for not being present, for reasons which I could not help, at the start of the debate. I have heard many of the speeches, and I was a little surprised at so many hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that we on this side of the House were wrong to stress what I will

call the ideological aspect of our attitude towards Spain. In the ordinary way, I would agree that the manner in which a country manages its internal affairs is something for that country alone. One might disagree with a foreign political system and would not want to accept it for one's own country, but in the ordinary way the matter would not be raised between nations; but when it is suggested that a free people, who have known free institutions, should be handed over by Britain to a dictatorship, then I do not think it is improper for those of us who detest dictatorship of any kind to point out that the Spanish system is a system of dictatorship, and this is an additional good reason for our resisting the Spanish claim apart from all the others.
I think that the debate will do good, because it will demonstrate to everyone, and particularly the Spanish Government, the unity of the Members of this House against any suggestion that the British position in Gibraltar should be abandoned. At one time, as my right hon. Friend knows, I was a little doubtful as to whether we were showing that kind of strength and determination in our resistance to Spanish claims and actions that we should show—not because I thought we were weak in that we would compromise with Spain, as such, but simply because I thought we were inclined to look at the situation far too much in purely abstract terms; and, with the great respect that we on this side of the House traditionally had for international law and for international institutions, we tended perhaps to stress too much the theoretical case for conciliation.
I must confess, however, that my right hon. Friend's speeches and actions in the last few weeks have done much to reassure me that he is as determined as anyone else to see that the British position, British responsibility, and the rights and opportunities of the people of Gibraltar, are fully maintained. I am still a little doubtful whether we are really wise to refer the matter to the International Court; not because I am against international courts—obviously not—or because I am against international institutions. It would be an excellent world if we could have courts of law accepted by all and whose decisions were respected throughout the world. However, unfortunately we do not have that state of


affairs as yet. In any event we have courts of law in our own country. But if I am certain of my position; if I am certain that my home really belongs to me; if I am certain that I am right in protecting my dependants, then I do not necessarily have to go to a court of law to have confirmed my natural rights. Thus, though it is possible to argue for the merits of international institutions, and be glad that some such institutions or courts exist, this does not mean that at every stage one must make use of them if one is certain that one's position is strong in any event. For that reason I am still a little doubtful whether tactically we have been right to refer the Gibraltar problem to the International Court of Justice.
I have been to Gibraltar on two occasions in recent years. I echo everything that has been said already about the fineness of the people of Gibraltar, about their quality as individuals, about their belief in democratic institutions, and about their absolute desire to retain the British connection. If there were a single soul to be found anywhere in Gibraltar who wished to have Gibraltar returned to Spain, that at least might be something, but the whole of the population of Gibraltar can be searched from end to end without anyone being found who wishes to see Gibraltar returned to Spain.
In fact, as has already been pointed out, Gibraltar can hardly be returned to Spain, because the British connection has been in Gibraltar for a longer period than the previous Spanish connection, because before the 15th century Gibraltar was part of Moorish territory. This is an historical point which is still worth making when Spain talks of "robbery".
There is no doubt that the people of Gibraltar, as a matter of their own self-determination, wish to remain with Britain in some political form which is workable and viable for the future. I stand firmly with those of my hon. Friends who say that the days of traditional colonial régimes are ended. Of course they are, and so they should be. It is indecent that one people should dominate of exploit another people or rule them against their wishes.
But when the principle of self-determination is applied, as it can be so easily

applied in this case, and when a small people wish to retain a particular connection with another country with which they have associated for so long, the anti-colonialist argument no longer applies and that of self-determination takes precedence. It is additionally strong in this case because of the geographical accessibility of Gibraltar to the United Kingdom. It is possible to visualise for the future some kind of permanent free association between Gibraltar and its indigenous population and the much larger sister people of the United Kingdom. This is natural because the indigenous population of Gibraltar are not Spaniards, even though most of them speak Spanish as their second language, but British in culture and habit. Such an association would respect the principle of self-determination and would at the same time be construed by no one as in any sense colonialism.
I am glad that this debate has taken place, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will make quite clear to all of us that he intends fully to maintain the British position because he believes it to be right and that he will do everything in his power to ensure that the free future and prosperity of the people of Gibraltar is guaranteed by the United Kingdom they respect so much.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: A great many of us felt it a pity that the admirably firm statements at the beginning of the Foreign Secretary's speech were almost immediately hidden by a vast smokescreen from frigates and gunboats which he managed to trail across the picture. We felt it a pity also that he could not make up his mind, apparently, whether he was proud or ashamed of the part which this country has played in the British Commonwealth of Nations and which it continues to play in the remaining Dependencies.
A good deal of the debate has centred upon the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) asked, which has been echoed by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), namely, whether the Foreign Secretary's new doctrine which he enunciated today means that any claim against this country should be


referred to the International Court. It would be surprising if it were his view that anyone who had a claim against us, however unjustified we might think it, need not wait for the question to be taken to the International Court by himself but would find us going to the International Court for the purpose of proving whether we were right. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman would seriously apply this doctrine to all international disputes, however unjustified he might think them, any more than he or anyone else would be willing to apply it to his own private life.
The debate has been rightly concerned with the present and the future rather than with the past, but it is always true that the sum of our past actions, or omissions, indisputably shapes our present situation and future prospects. In no case is this more plainly true than in the case of Gibraltar. Most of us can remember the fierce denunciations not long ago by members of the Labour Party of the so-called policy of appeasement in the 1930s. The Foreign Secretary tells us that the Government's policy has not been appeasement. He would, no doubt, prefer to call it conciliation.
I am the first to agree that the attempt to conciliate almost always deserves praise. I do not believe that such an attempt is a sign of weakness, and I am convinced that, ultimately, the healing of differences both between human beings and between groups of human beings is the noblest endeavour of which we are capable. But, unfortunately, as we have seen in the matter we are now debating, the gap between wise and firm conciliation, on the one side, and the first fatal signs of weakness, on the other, is dangerously narrow and all too easily overstepped.
We have seen that the surrender of important debating positions one after the other is bound to create a lively impression that, under the steady application of further pressure, the whole defensive position will collapse. I am not arguing, and it would be idle to argue, whether Her Majesty's Government were right to begin talks about Gibraltar while restrictions still existed at La Linea. But it is true, none the less, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) pointed out, that it was barely a year ago that the Minister of State at

the Foreign Office used very firm words—and the earlier White Paper, Cmnd. 2632, reporting the exchanges between Great Britain and Spain during the previous winter echoed this firm robustness on almost every page—and then, within three or four months of the hon. Gentleman's firm statement, the firmness disappeared.
The first position had then been abandoned. What was much more serious was that the evasion of the then Foreign Secretary, when he refused to say whether or not British sovereignty would be discussed during the talks, made a great many people fear that Her Majesty's Government were about to yield a second and far more important position.
Moreover, there are two other principles which most of us always assumed were implicit in any presentation of the case for Great Britain over Gibraltar. The first is that Great Britain would be prepared to sustain the people of Gibraltar in any difficulties they might face, with all the resources available. The assumption which I have just mentioned got a very bad shaking when the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is to reply to this debate, refused to say the short word "Yes", which was all that was necessary, in answer to a direct question on this subject.
The other assumption on which we have always worked is that Great Britain would never entertain the possibility of a new arrangement for Gibraltar which would sever the connection between Britain and Gibraltar while the people of Gibraltar desired it to continue. The Foreign Secretary, however, has now taken an action which, for the first time, makes such a severance possible, however, lively—and there is no doubt about its liveliness—the desire of Gibraltar to remain closely attached to Britain.
It seems to me that this afternoon the Foreign Secretary got himself into a jam, because I heard him, as other hon. Members will have done, talk about the paramount importance which he attached to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. I have looked up "paramount" in the dictionary and I find that it means "superior to all others". This therefore means that at one moment in his speech the Foreign Secretary was saying that the rule of law must take precedence, whereas at another


moment he said that whatever happens about our case at the International Court, the importance of the wishes of the people of Gibraltar is paramount. When the Secretary of State for the Colonies replies to the debate, will he make clear—because this is an immensely important question—which, in his view, is of paramount importance, the decision of the International Court or the wishes of the people of Gibraltar?
One by one these moves from previously-held positions, and the food for suspicion with which the Government have fed Parliament and public opinion in Britain, have shaken confidence a great deal in this country and they have, no doubt, similarly, aroused confidence in Madrid. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet pointed out, the occasional attempts by right hon. Members opposite to be rude to the Spanish Government will give an impression not of strength, but of weakness.
The mistakes of the past cannot be entirely wiped out. Certainly, the protection of Gibraltar from possible unwanted rule by Spain—although I am the first to admit that it would be wrong to make too much of this—cannot be as complete now as it was a month ago, now that the Government have decided to refer all the issues, including the issue of our sovereignty in Gibraltar, to the International Court.
I have found during the debate that the reference to the International Court of Justice seems to have very few friends. I heard a particularly withering attack on it by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger). As my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay rightly said, however, what is done cannot be undone, unless Spain refuses to let it be done. I agree wholeheartedly both with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet and with the Foreign Secretary that the Gibraltar question which has been referred means the question in its entirety: the people, most important of all, the Rock and the Isthmus.
Whether or not the Gibraltar question ever comes before the International Court of Justice, however, there is still a great deal that the Secretary of State can do to create new confidence both in the minds of people in this country and in the minds of people in Gibraltar and of those

in Spain. By all accounts the Secretary of State for the Colonies was more successful in reassuring the people of Gibraltar during his recent visit to the Rock than he was in giving confidence to hon. Members when he answered questions here on 25th October. We are grateful for that improvement.
The Government are now awaiting the answer of the Spanish Government to this proposed reference to the International Court. If the Government of Spain agree, it seems to me—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views—that it is likely to be many months before these questions are decided. Meanwhile, the pressure by Spain against Gibraltar and its inhabitants may well increase. We should like to be reassured—and the right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to reassure us—about the plans which the right hon. Gentleman has made to sustain the life of Gibraltar during this period, even if Gibraltar has to stand completely on its own. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that Britain is prepared to take all steps to counter all possible Spanish pressure and to prove to the people of Gibraltar that we intend to stand by them in all circumstances?
On the other side, if Spain refuses the reference to the International Court, are the Government prepared to return to the talks, the atmosphere of which does not seem to have grown very much more harmonious during the last six months; or is the time approaching, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay suggested, when we can rightly claim to have discharged the duty which was remitted to us by the Committee of 24 two years ago?
In either case, whether Spain accedes to the Government's suggestion or refuses it, this country now demands—and this is not a matter of issue between us, because demands have been expressed from both sides of the House—that the Government should show firmness and a clarity of purpose which have been very sadly lacking during the last year. The Foreign Secretary said that it would do the Spaniards no harm to hear a firm statement of the British position. There were aspects of his speech which were admirably firm. Whether its clarity matched its firmness was a question about which I was not sure.
Fortunately, none of us in the House doubts the patriotism of either the Foreign Secretary or the Colonial Secretary. Our complaint is that the evasions of the Government and their frequent prevarications have caused a dangerous decline in confidence and certainty of British intention both here and in Gibraltar, with a corresponding effect on expectations in Spain. I do not believe that it is yet too late to redeem those mistakes of the past and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to do so.

9.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Frederick Lee): Many of the matters raised during the debate fall within the province of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I will take up one or two as I go along, but in the main I have nothing to add to what he said. However, there are other matters which fall directly to me as Minister responsible for Gibraltar and in any case I would not wish to lose the oportunity to tell the House something of the events during my visit to Gibraltar last week.
First, I hope and believe that the whole House will wish to join with me in paying tribute to the Governor of Gibraltar, General Sir Gerald Lathbury, who in his unique position as head of both the Government and the Garrison is giving such outstanding leadership to both the civil and military community in Gibraltar. I was able to confirm at first hand the complete confidence shown by Gibraltar Ministers and by the public in their Governor. I should like also to pay tribute especially to the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, and his deputy, Mr. Peter Isola, well known to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Their quiet resolution and wise counsel have been the greatest support to the Governor and an inspiration to their colleagues and the people of Gibraltar in these trying times.
Hon. Members have referred to the restrictions which the Spanish authorities have imposed at the Gibraltar frontier. As they will know from the White Paper published in April, 1965, these measures to isolate Gibraltar economically from Spain began in October, 1964, with artificially contrived delays to vehicles crossing the frontier at La Linea. Later the export of all goods from Spain into Gib-

raltar was stopped except for fish, fresh fruit and vegetables. Then a number of British subjects who worked in Gibraltar but lived in the adjacent area of Spain were denied the use of their passports and passes to cross into Gibraltar to work.
As a result they had to leave their homes in Spain and move into an already overcrowded Gibraltar. Further Spanish measures this year culminated in the downgrading of the La Linea customs post last month, so that no vehicles or merchandise of any kind can now pass by land between Spain and Gibraltar, although pedestrians can still cross.
We deplore these measures and regard them as quite unworthy of a European nation in the 20th century. I am sure we have the support of everyone in this House on that. We also deplore the campaign of vilification pursued on Spanish radio and television. I know something about campaigns of vilification, but in my case the barber does not come from Seville.
As hon. Members will have seen from the White Paper which my right hon. Friend laid before the House last week, we have not at any stage failed to protest at these measures and to make it clear to Spain that the imposition of restrictions of this nature is not the way to create good will and facilitate a settlement of the dispute over Gibraltar.
Meanwhile, irksome and unworthy as these Spanish measures are, we must keep their practical effects in perspective. Some sectors of the Gibraltar economy have indeed been seriously hit. The effect on individual businesses has varied according to how much they depended on tourism and on direct trade with Spain. The value of imports in 1965 fell by 44 per cent. from those of the previous year—which had been an exceptionally good one—and will almost certainly show a further decrease this year. This will naturally affect the revenues of Gibraltar which had risen to their highest point ever in 1964. Also, because of the need to import building materials from further afield, the cost of building constructions has increased considerably.
But the Gibraltarians are both adaptable and resilient. They have faced worse situations over the 250 years during which the Rock has been British, and they have won through. They have


already begun to adapt themselves and their economy to this new situation. With our backing and help I have no doubt that they will succeed. In this connection I would commend to hon. Members an informative article on Gibraltar which appears in The Times of today. I hope that the humour of this situation will appeal to hon. Gentlemen if I assure the House that it is quite authentic on this occasion. Whatever the position on the land frontier, Gibraltar lies open to the sea and most of its trade has always been by sea.
I am glad to say that the Spanish action in downgrading the Customs Post has not caused problems in essential supplies. With a few exceptions, the passage of merchandise across the land frontier had been prohibited since the Spanish restrictions began. The exceptions were fruit, vegetables and fish. These too have now been stopped, but adequate supplies are available from elsewhere, and have been arriving since the evening of the day the new restrictions were imposed.
I turn to the plans of the Gibraltar Government, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked. These plans are for an extended development programme for the years from 1967–70. The bulk of the expenditure in the programme will, in our view rightly, be devoted to the provision of additional housing accommodation. I think that we all agree that the provision of such housing is an essential adjunct to further economic development in Gibraltar. Housing conditions there have been extremely difficult since the end of the war.
The Gibraltar Government have been continuously engaged on a rehousing programme for their population. But this problem was increased very considerably last year by the action of the Spanish authorities, to which I have referred, in making it impossible for Gibraltarians to work in Gibraltar but to live in Spain. This action alone involves the Government of Gibraltar in accommodating between 600 and 700 extra people. New flats must also be provided to attract people from overseas with the skills now needed to sustain the Gibraltar economy—for instance, in the dockyards and in the building trade.
The Government of Gibraltar have been working on a programme to which we have contributed £1 million in Colonial Development and Welfare funds. We offered a further £200,000 as an Exchequer loan and which the Commonwealth Development Corporation has also been helping to finance. This provides for the completion of 440 housing units by 1968, and they now plan to expand this by a further 560 units, making 1,000 in all by 1970.
The plan also includes improvements in amenities which will make possible both an expansion of tourism and private development and the building associated with it. Several hon. Members have asked about the future of tourism. This is an essential part of the programme now being developed.
I do not think that Gibraltar need henceforth see her future as simply a place where tourists pass through on their way to Spain. I am sure that there are great potentialities for holidays in Gibraltar itself, coupled with visits to Morocco and other places which can be reached so easily. The Gibraltar Government's development plan provides for improvements which will make the attractions of the Rock and its peoples far more accessible to visitors than they are now.
Finally, the plan provides for very necessary expenditure on certain public utilities, including electricity and water. I was very glad to study all this on the spot during my visit last week.
Hon. Members have naturally wanted to know more about financial aid. The Gibraltar Government will be contributing quite substantially to the financing of the programme and, as the House knows, I have told them that we support the general objectives of the programme and that, in order to allow them to start implementing it, we are allocating to Gibraltar immediately a further £600,000 of Colonial Development and Welfare money. I also said that we should be ready to discuss with them later the subsequent stages of this programme. The House knows that Gibraltar Ministers welcomed our offer.
Gibraltar is now embarking confidently on the first stage of her expanded development programme. Before I left Gibraltar, I was able to tell the people there how much we admired their courage and


determination and how impressed I have been by the strength and sincerity of their wish to stay British and to stay with Britain.
I was very touched by the warmth of my reception in Gibraltar and heartened by the discussions which we had subsequently. The tone of those discussions was very well caught in the statement which was issued by the Council of Ministers in Gibraltar on 2nd November, at the end of my visit. The statement began with a paragraph which, with permission, I should like to read to the House:
The discussions by the Council of Ministers with the Secretary of State have covered the whole range of political and economic problems arising out of the Spanish Government's actions against Gibraltar and we are pleased to state not only that our views are fully appreciated by the Secretary of State but that there is complete harmony of views between Her Majesty's Government and the Gibraltar Government.
Whether that is disappointing in some parts of the House, I would not know; but that really is the case, and I am looking forward very much to a continuation of my talks with the Governor, the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister when they come to this country next month. I know that they will receive a very warm welcome here.
A number of hon. Gentlemen, among them the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), were concerned about what would happen if the Spaniards withdrew their male labour. As the House knows, the Spanish authorities have stopped the 2,000 Spanish women who were working in Gibraltar from entering. They alleged that, following an incident involving two drunken Spanish labourers and the Gibraltar police, it was no longer safe for Spanish women to come into Gibraltar to work. But it has not escaped notice that, while it is alleged that it is unsafe, the Spanish authorities see no danger in allowing Spanish women to enter Gibraltar regularly to draw the pensions to which they have become entitled under the Gibraltar social security scheme.
Several hon. Members mentioned the women's organisations in Gibraltar, and I join with them in my admiration for the work that those ladies are doing. Since Spanish female labour has been withdrawn, the women of Gibraltar have

acclimatised themselves to a completely new set of conditions, and the way in which they are coping is something which one notices there.
The remaining 6,000 Spanish male workers are still going daily into Gibraltar. As I told the House on a previous occasion, the Gibraltar Government have plans to deal with the situation which would arise should that labour be withdrawn. In Gibraltar, we looked at those plans again in great detail, and I am satisfied that they will meet the situation. But I am sure that the House will understand why I cannot possibly make them public. I am quite satisfied, for my part, that they are adequate to meet the position which would arise if the Spaniards withdrew that labour.
Again the right hon. Member for Bar-net, among others, said that he was disturbed by the fact that we first declined to hold talks with Spain under the duress of the frontier restrictions and later agreed to do so. During the course of this evening's debate, we have had a number of variations on that theme. Our policy has been perfectly consistent. It is the situation itself and not the policy which has changed. Originally, at the end of 1964, we were dealing with a consensus of the United Nations Committee of 24. That consensus invited Spain and Britain to begin talks about Gibraltar. It seemed to us that the talks would have a much greater chance of success if the Spanish Government first lifted the restrictions which she had recently imposed at the frontier. We were justified fully in requiring that she should at least make some move in that direction before talks began.
The Spanish Government refused to remove or reduce the restrictions. At the end of last year—and this is where the difference comes—it was not only a question of the consensus of the Committee of 24. The General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution which had the full authority of the Assembly, urging that the talks which the Committee of 24 had envisaged should begin without delay.
In view of this, we thought it right that those talks should then begin, and I suggest to the House that there is a very real difference between a consensus in the Committee of 24 and a


Resolution passed by the full Assembly of the United Nations.

Sir G. Sinclair: Sir G. Sinclairrose——

Mr. Lee: I want to get on.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said that there had been misleading statements from the Government side of the House and that my refusal to say "Yes" had caused a certain amount of apprehension. This is a highly sophisticated assembly which occasionally understands the background against which questions are either answered or not answered. The one thing which was really remarkable was that among the part-time politicians on the Ministerial Council in Gibraltar I could not find one who did not know why that incident happened. Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at the question I was asked? I was asked to give an utterly unconditional assurance that under every conceivable set of conditions we would hang on to sovereignty. What happens if I say "Yes"? The right hon. Gentleman either knew that he was being utterly mischievous, or was not very particular whether we won the case at the International Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]
Let us face it. The right hon. Gentleman knew that we were asking the Spanish Government to agree to come to the International Court. We cannot very well ask another Government whether they are prepared to go to the International Court, and to abide by its decisions, and then, even before they have agreed to go to the Court, give a categorical assurance that even if they go, and they win, we will refuse point blank to accede to the Court's request.

Mr. Hirst: This is the whole point.

Mr. Lee: I know that, and I am saying that if we are to be members of an international organisation like the United Nations——

Mr. Hirst: That is not the answer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that.

Mr. Lee: Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want another Suez? Let us face it. Either we agree to abide by international law or we take the law into our own hands, and I say again that had I fallen for the

blandishments of the right hon. Gentleman the Spanish Government would have been within their rights to say, "The British Government are being completely hypocritical in that they have said that even if we win they will not agree to the decision of the court".
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether we thought it was a good thing to insult the Spanish Government, and this question was asked by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite during the debate. The insult which we were alleged to have offered was that we called the Spanish Government a Fascist dictatorship. Is this an insult to them? If the world were to keep calling us a fine democratic Government, we would regard it as a great honour. Why should the Spanish Government, based as they are on the Fascist ideology, regard it as an insult if we refer to them as a Fascist dictatorship? For my money, we are proud of our democratic concept which is the opposite of the dictatorship of which they are not very proud.
Two hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that we had grossly offended Spanish pride. They said that the Spaniards were a proud people. I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that pride is not a virtue, but one of the seven deadly sins. Indeed, so is envy. I wonder whether the Spanish Government are not activated more by pride than by anything else.
One heard the reaction when my right hon. Friend mentioned our record of decolonisation since the war. Surely it is a very proud record. Surely, if we can show that since the war we have brought independence to 700 million people who were previously in our Colonies, this is a criterion by which the United Nations should be able to judge whether we are right in saying that where-ever a territory asks for and can sustain independence it can have it. I challenge contradiction when I say that one could not find a voice in Gibraltar which favoured a change from British citizenship to any sort of connection with Spain.
My right hon. Friend illustrated the attitude of the Spanish Government on the question of decolonisation. Whilst I was in Gibraltar I ventured to make points similar to those which my right hon. Friend made tonight. Unfortunately, the British Press did not notice


them, except for The Times. These are points of enormous consequence if this issue goes back to the United Nations. Therefore, far from being a cause for sneering, I would have thought that this was something of which both parties—for they have both played a part in this enormous change—should be proud; something in respect of which we, as a nation, lead the world. It is surely upon this kind of criterion that we should ask the United Nations to judge us as distinct from the Spaniards.

Sir G. Sinclair: The right hon. Gentleman has made the greatest play over reverence for the United Nations—the Committee of 24 and the Assembly. Was it the United Nations that asked us to refer this matter to the International Court? I suggest that it was not.

Mr. Lee: It was the United Nations that passed the Resolution that we should agree to talk with Spain. Therefore, it was in complete conformity with a decision of the Assembly—and not merely a consensus of opinion among the Committee of 24—that we took the step of discussing these issues with Spain.
The point has been made that if one has possession one does not go to the Court; it is the other man who goes. Let us consider that. We in Britain are not suffering from the imposition of restrictions by the Spanish Government; the Gibraltarians are suffering. Who are we to say that that kind of thing should go on and on, rather than that we should take the matter to the International Court and have the full light of world opinion thrown upon the matter? I would have thought that this was easily the best way to ensure that the restrictions are raised.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to sit smugly back when they are not suffering from the impositions placed upon the people of Gibraltar—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) must not interrupt.

Mr. Hirst: I cannot help it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lee: I have given the House the background of the feeling and the degree of agreement that this Government have

reached with the Government of Gibraltar. They know quite well that we will support them. The £600,000 that we offered was a first instalment, as they know. I have told the House that the full extent of their programme will now begin to unfold. The Governor and the two Ministers will be coming here in the next few weeks and we will again discuss, in the light of the developments since I was last there, the next features of the programme, how we want to co-ordinate them and so o
The people of Gibraltar are under no illusion—no matter what hon. Members opposite think—and they know that this Government are solidly with them and will sustain them. We believe that our case is right. We want the world to know it. We want to take it to the International Court in the knowledge that it is right. If the Spanish Government feels that it has a case which it would like to take into the world arena, let it come to the Court, and let the Court decide.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I have attended all the debate except for about an hour and a quarter and I had hoped that, before we concluded, the right hon. Gentleman would answer the material point which arose time after time in our discussions. It is an important one. We ought to know and the people of Gibraltar ought to know what is the Government's attitude if the Court gives a verdict contrary to what they and the House hope for. The right hon. Gentleman should give some information on this matter. It is no good his saying that the people of Gibraltar trust the Government. I have not been there and I will not argue that, because one needs very good information on this point, although I will go there willingly to find out.
But, if that is so, their reliance is based upon that form of assurance—that they will not, in the last analysis, be let down. This is what the House has a right to know. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), in what I think the whole House will agree was a very capable and well documented speech, said that the Foreign Secretary was dodging certain matters. But the biggest dodge by the Foreign Secretary—and by the Colonial Secretary—was on this one point.
I do not question the Government's intention to do all that they can for the people of Gibraltar. I do not question that they wish to help the people of Gibraltar by means of housing and other things. No one who has been here for some time would question any Government on that premise. But we are entitled to question them on this very material point, that, having taken this decision—I accept that it is sincere and I am sure that they believe that this is the right thing to do: this has been the point of the debate—they must have faced up to the question, in meetings of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees, of what are the consequences of their action.
If they have not faced up to that question, they have no right to be in Government. They owe it to the House and to the country and to the people of Gibraltar to say categorically what is the consequence of this action if the decision of the Court goes against them. If they cannot say that, they are not being true to themselves, they are not being true to the country and they are not being true to the people of Gibraltar. They are making an unmitigated and despicable farce of the whole of the negotiations over Gibraltar——

Mr. George Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this chance, because I think that this may go out from this House and we may disturb many people. With the hon. Gentleman's permission, and yours, Mr. Speaker, may I therefore repeat that we will see the people of Gibraltar through the problem? We will sustain them, we will support them, we will supply them. The hon. Gentleman asks, have I any other answer than the International Court? I am entitled to ask him, as I have asked everyone who has spoken tonight, has he any other answer to the ultimate problem than that of going to the International Court?

Mr. Hirst: The right hon. Gentleman, perfectly fairly, put the same question to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay. My hon. Friend and I say that this matter should never have been referred. If we stand by our rights and believe——

Mr. George Brown: What is the alternative?

Mr. Hirst: —in our obligations we must stand by them and say, "This is

our responsibility and we will stick by it through thick and thin". The right hon. Gentleman has no right to challenge me unless he will answer my challenge. After all, they are the Government while I am only a thoroughly good private hon. Member. It is for them to say what they will do as a consequence of their action. They are not being frank if they are not prepared to say what they will do. This is fundamental and the right hon. Gentleman and the Colonial Secretary are not answering the debate unless they face up to this situation.
It is no good the Foreign Secretary merely saying in those terms that Her Majesty's Government will stand by Gibraltar. While it is unlikely that the International Court's decision will go against Her Majesty's Government, what do the sort of assurances the right hon. Gentleman has given mean? What is meant by "standing by the people of Gibraltar" in this context? I challenge the Foreign Secretary, with four minutes to go, to answer that question or be damned to eternity—[Interruption.]

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Having listened to the opening and concluding speeches, and particularly to the remarks of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), I cannot refrain from adding my comments in the closing moment of this debate.
It is absolutely extraordinary, if the Conservative Party feels so strongly on this matter and believes that it should not have been referred to the International Court, that we are not debating a Motion tabled by the Conservatives to the effect that it should not be so referred.

Mr. Hirst: It has been done. The horse has bolted.

Mr. Lubbock: Instead, we are debating this extremely important question on the Motion for the Adjournment, and it is quite unprecedented for the House to have heard a sequence of speeches from Conservative hon. Members deploring the fact that the matter has been referred when they have not had the courage to place a Motion on the Notice Paper saying what they really think.

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that most of the speeches made today have not been heard by any Liberal hon. Members at all?

Mr. Lubbock: I am not aware of that. [Interruption.] I prefaced my remarks by saying that I listened to the opening and closing speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) heard all the speeches that I did not hear—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and I therefore believe that I can fairly size up the debate. I notice that hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with my assessment of Conservative hon. Members in that they have not had the courage of their convictions in tabling a Motion stating that the Government should not have referred the matter to the International Court.

Mr. George Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he will repair tomorrow the deficiencies made by his absence today if he reads the report of the debate in HANSARD, where he will read that many speeches were made from this side of the House agreeing that it is deplorable that the issue should be referred to the International Court?

Mr. Lubbock: I already spend at least three hours each day reading the

OFFICIAL REPORT. I assure you that tomorrow will be no exception.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I need no assurance from the hon. Member. He must assure the hon. Member to whom he is speaking; and whether or not he is a slow reader is not a subject for this debate.

Mr. Lubbock: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was tempted into making that comment by the intervention of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger).
This debate seems to be a sham piece of hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative Party. I am glad that the Government are taking a firm stand, and I deplore the action of Conservative hon. Members in making party political capital out of a situation in which the people of Gibraltar are making a heroic stand in this battle against Spanish Fascist domination.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETROL FILLING STATIONS (SOLUS ARRANGEMENTS)

10.0 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move,
That the Solus Petrol (No. 2) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1314), dated 20th October, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th October, be approved.
This Order carries out the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission on solus ties and solus sites in the oil and petrol distribution business. It is basically designed, following the Commission's Report, to give greater freedom of choice to the motorist at petrol stations in purchasing petrol, oil and other motor accessories.
Before introducing the previous Order, the Board of Trade, as the House knows, tried for a considerable period of months to get a voluntary undertaking from the relevant oil companies to carry out substantially the Commission's recommendations. We obtained that voluntary undertaking from 41 out of 42 of the companies concerned. We came to the conclusion—and I think the House agreed when the previous Order, which this replaces, was debated—that it would be unfair to the 41 companies who were voluntarily complying with this request if the one dissentient company were allowed to go its own way at the expense of the 41. It was for that reason that we introduced the previous Order. That Order was approved by the House on 6th August of this year. It is now being replaced by this No. 2 Order for a procedural reason which I will explain.
The first Order was adjudged in another place to be a hybrid Order because it affected one named company. For that reason a Petition was made against the Order and the Petitioners, who were, of course, the dissentient company, were, for whatever reason, technically late in putting their Petition forward. It would have been possible for us to take advantage of that and to go straight ahead and ask the House of Lords to approve the previous Order. We were anxious, however, to be scrupulously fair to the complainants. We therefore agreed to let the first Order lapse, in order to put them on the right

side of the timetable. For that reason it is necessary to introduce this further Order.
That is the whole explanation of this Order. So that the House knows all the relevant facts I should add that the previous Order is at present being investigated by a Select Committee in another place on the Petition of Total, the company affected. I cannot, of course, at the moment say what the outcome of the Order may be.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: In his brief reference to this Order the President of the Board of Trade made it all sound rather procedural, but there is a little more to it than that and we ought to probe it a little more. It seems to me that there are some substantial interests and matters underlying the question which we are being asked to consider.
On the purely procedural point, the President of the Board of Trade spoke about the Board of Trade not wishing to be unfair to this single company which is trying to take advantage of the hybrid Standing Orders in the House of Lords. But he will admit that there must have been, prima facie, some measure of merit in the appeal which the Total Company made to the Special Orders Committee in the House of Lords for this whole procedure to have been invoked. Although it is not unprecedented, it is very rare.
It is the merit in the Total case which has enabled them to be heard by the Special Orders Committee and subsequently to be heard by a Select Committee of the House of Lords, before which counsel are briefed and evidence called for and against the principles in this case. Surely it cannot be argued that we should be asked in the House to consider the merits of an Order, the whole substance of which is at present in dispute between counsel before a Select Committee of the House of Lords.
How can we evaluate the merits of the Order when the whole matter is in discussion in the House of Lords? It would be surely reasonable for the Government to consider postponing this second Order until the Select Committee had reached its conclusions, until


the evidence which had been argued could be published and we were aware whether the Order would lapse and whether the House of Lords would accept the findings of the Select Committee.
I understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that the Order which is now being examined before the Select Committee in the House of Lords is the earlier Order. If that is correct, it means that Total must go through the whole petitioning procedure again if the Select Committee finds in its favour in the Order which is at present under review. Surely, therefore, it would have been better that tonight's Order should have been held back until the arguments advanced by counsel on both sides had been evaluated by the Select Committee in the House of Lords and its conclusions published so that we could consider them. We are asked to consider the merits of the case on a great deal of evidence which is not available to us. That is not in the interest of the House.
The President of the Board of Trade will agree that there is a lot more to this matter than just one company being a bit cussed and awkward. There is no doubt on the basis of its provisions that the effect of the Order will be very important on the Total company—and not only to that company but, in one way or another, to the economy of the country at large. Indeed, not only is it a question of the purely economic interest of the country, but, Total being a French company, the matter is not without its international repercussions. A large French-based company—and there are plenty of British petrol companies selling petrol in France—is trying to invade the British market in competition with British firms to sell petrol here. There are bound to be ramifications at another level if the Government clamp down on the possibilities of this company's sales and expansion in this country. There is more to it than the President of the Board of Trade has so far allowed.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the effect upon the company. Having looked at the case put up by Total—and I have been able to see a little of some of the evidence which has been talked about in the House of Lords—there seems to me to be no doubt that Total has in the past been encouraged

to enter the United Kingdom market. The right hon. Gentleman's own Department undoubtedly gave the company encouragement particularly to establish a refinery here. This is of crucial importance.
We do not know what encouragement the Board of Trade used—the word could even be a euphemism—but there is no doubt that through the industrial development certificate procedure and in other ways the Board of Trade encouraged Total to establish refinery facilities in this country, which the Total company proceeded to do. In conjunction with another company, Total has spent nearly £20 million on building an oil refinery here, and has spent it, I would add, in foreign currency. This is, therefore, a net asset in terms of an investment in this country in foreign currency at the direct instigation and encouragement of the Board of Trade.
The refinery, which has been built here with the aid of hard-currency French new francs, has a throughput of petrol and light distillates of 180 million gallons. This capacity is crucial to the case that Total is putting forward. It has also as a sideline invested something like £5 million in company stations retailing its petrol.
The effect of this Order, if it is not disallowed by the Select Committee in the House of Lords, will be quite simple and quite catastrophic for Total. The effect of this will be that as soon as it has reached the limit of sales of 50 million gallons per annum, that is to say, about one-third of its refinery capacity, by this Order it will not be allowed to acquire any more company-owned stations for selling its refinery product of petrol, if the proportion of sales already exceeds 15 per cent. of the total gallons sold.
The facts about Total are quite simple. It is already at about the 50 million gallons level in its sales, and of those 50 million gallons already something like 60 per cent.—not 15 per cent., but 60 per cent.—is at present going through company-owned stations. The effect of this is therefore stark. It means that if Total wants to increase its sales of petrol in this country up to the limit of its established refinery capacity it will not be able to do so through company-owned


stations. It will have to go out through other retail outlets.
This is a quite serious and, I believe, almost mortal blow to the trading prospects of an incoming foreign company so far as petrol sales in this country are concerned. It claims—I think it is reasonable—that for a company comparatively unknown in this country, a foreign firm, it is very difficult to get greater outlets for sales, unless it can retail through its own labelled company stations, in which it has put in modern equipment of the highest possible standards of cleanliness and so on. Furthermore, it is very difficult for it, even it has tried to get its own outlets, to break into the retail market through united petrol stations. They are relatively few, because other established companies have many tied stations.
The effect of the Order will be to turn off the tap of its retailing when it has reached only about one-third of its refinery capacity. I cannot believe that the Government really mean to do this. The fact is that Total sales are something like 50 million gallons out of a total of national throughput of petrol stations of 3,000 million gallons per annum; that 50 million is under 2 per cent. of the total. This cannot conceivably be considered a monopolistic tendency by this particular company.
I would remind the President of the Board of Trade that by a strange paradox the encouragement which he may give to Total to retail more of its refinery product through company-owned stations may have the very opposite effect of encouraging competition. It may by a paradox be in the interests of this country to ignore the Monopolies Commission's findings. I would read a very short paragraph from an interesting book called "Fuel Policy" published by P.E.P. as recently as 1966:
By comparison with most other markets in Western Europe, Britain until recently remained a stable market dominated by major companies reluctant to push price competition further than they had to in order to retain market share; so the British consumer paid more for his oil than some others in Europe.
The break in this whole stable price level has come from the invaders, from Total coming in, and the other foreign companies, which have effected a loosening up of the market in Britain. It

is this sort of incursion we want in this country. Yet by a paradox the Government will by this Order effect the securing of the market for the established companies and reduce competition. I cannot see how this can conceivably be denied on the basis of the evidence we have before us.
I just want to remind the President of the Board of Trade of that compromise which Total put forward before. I think it reasonable to remind him of this because this seems an eminently reasonable case. The President of the Board of Trade will recall that Total suggested to him that there might be a modification in the provisions of the Order or of the voluntary agreement it had been asked to undertake, which would have the effect of that upon reaching the crucial 50 million gallons the company would be permitted to acquire in any subsequent year additional stations up to 15 per cent. of the number of its company-owned stations existing at the end of the previous year. In other words, the company would be allowed to increase its company-owned stations on a basis of 15 per cent. per annum until its total sales in the dealer market reached 5 per cent., which is a small enough figure.
I remember that the Minister of State, in the course of the short exchange we had on this matter in August, went on record as saying
About the economics … whether the Monopolies Commission … have the economics right and whether we have the economics right, I do not know. Total have their views … there is some substance to their arguments, but having got the undertakings from all other companies, it was impossible, despite the strength of Total's arguments to leave them out of account; otherwise all the other undertakings would have been destroyed.
Not only has this been admitted here, but it has been admitted by the Government in another place, to the extent that they have allowed a Select Committee to receive evidence from counsel on the matter. There must be substance in it and I think I have produced sufficient facts to show that there is substance in it. The only fair thing to do would be to withdraw the Order until the Select Committee has made its findings known, and to see if the Government can reach a fair compromise with Total to enable the company to get a modest corner of


the market. It would inject an element of competition in the retail petrol industry, it would prevent the souring of international relations, and it would do justice to an individual company. We hope that the President of the Board of Trade will seriously consider this argument.

10.19 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I have followed with interest and mounting alarm the complexity of the goings on which have been taking place in another place. It seems to have amounted to a kind of hurrahs-nest of the sort that is usually experienced only at sea. Here we have an attempt by the Government to do the right thing by having withdrawn the Order that gave rise to such complications and such difficulties, and by not having depended on the procedural point in that a Petition was introduced out of time by various curious coincidences—in other words, not to stand on procedure but to deal with this matter on the merits of the case. I think this is wholly proper. I think it shows a spirit of fairness which I should like to see extended into a wider section of our political life.
Although I personally have anxiously awaited for a long time some implementation of the Report of the Monopolies Commission on petrol distribution, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade well knows, I am now glad that this matter is being dealt with with suitable deliberation; and I think the Government are doing the right thing.
I have studied the evolution of this case with interest, and I was aware some time ago of the refusal of the Total Oil Company to sign undertakings in accordance with the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission. I have some sympathy for its attitude as, on the relative scale of operations, the company is, as my hon. Friend said, a small outfit seeking a corner of a very rich market and in considerable danger of being trampled down by the giants, who are by no means too particular where they put their big feet. We certainly do not want that. The objections that Total raises range far and wide and in many ways they challenge the findings of the Monopolies Commission. I do not welcome this.
In the statement on the Solus Petrol (No. 2) Order by Total Oil, on the subject of the limitation of company-owned petrol stations, which is what the row is about, the company says this:
the large older-established companies… are protected from encroachment by newcomers, such as Total.
It goes on to say that it regards the undertaking which would bring this about as
anti-competitive and contrary to the true purpose of monopolies legislation.
How? Surely this argument rests on one point, and one point only—the limitation of company-owned stations. It takes no cognisance whatsoever of having to compete for privately-owned stations as outlets. Total wants to consider only the stations owned by the same company as finds, transports, refines and distributes the oil—this very large and, I suspect, indestructible structure, once it exists, which we already have had proved for us in this country as being an abuse. Total wants to consider only company-owned stations as the weapon it chooses for competition. My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said that 60 per cent. of Total's retail output is sold through company-owned stations. This is a very high percentage. And this is what the Monopolies Commission has expressly refuted. If this is Total's view of competition, all I can say is that Total is as bad as the rest.
Total has proposed a scheme which it calls a "compromise" and which it has designed to suit itself. I can see that Total has a point. It would like to be inhibited in its attempts to compete. I am with Total on that. But this compromise, as they call it, is merely a licence to increase the aggregate of company-owned petrol stations—faster for Total than for the giants. A few calculations seem to indicate that in five or six years" time Total might have about 500 company-owned stations and meanwhile the giants would be galloping ahead with an extra 100 or 200 company-owned stations per annum.
This is wholly wrong. We do not want to increase company-owned stations. I therefore condemn these representations. If Total finds itself handicapped, as it says, under the Order, which enforces what it originally refused to sign, this is unfortunate for Total, but I believe


that it has mainly itself to thank for this. It is a pity, but I am in no doubt that Total will have the opportunity to petition another place. It certainly cannot claim in this case that it has been given brusque or unfair treatment, as the first Order was withdrawn and another put in its place.
This implementation of the Report of the Monopolies Commission is necessary. It is so overdue that many people have been wondering if it would ever happen. I therefore welcome the bringing forward of the Order, while deploring the circumstances that make it necessary. I hope that the House will give the Order a fair wind.

10.25 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) will not be offended if I speak in a sense quite contrary to his speech. I always have a healthy suspicion when the establishment links with an authoritarian Government and supports the Government in in action which they take to reduce competition.

Dr. Bennett: Who is the establishment?

Sir D. Glover: The established companies. What the established companies are doing—I do not blame them—is trying to make sure that the percentage of the market which they have is the percentage which they retain.

Mr. Jay: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the established companies are not at all fond of the Order or of the restrictions which they have accepted.

Sir D. Glover: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it remains the fact that they have agreed to them. Only Total was the maverick which stood out. I can readily understand why the established companies did not want to agree. They would much prefer to go on as they were, but they were faced with a Report of the Monopolies Commission. But in this instance, I suggest, the Monopolies Commission is standing on its head.
What is the purpose of distribution? I will cite the analogy which I cite to all national chambers of trade, that it is

to get the wool from the sheep's back on to the human back at the lowest possible price. That is a good analogy. It is as simple as that. I have spent my life in retail distribution, and I deplore multiple chains making competition greater for me, but God did not give me a prescriptive right to make a living if I did not give a service to the consumer at a price which was of benefit to the consumer.
There are 41 companies—with Total 42—and a lot of the pricing policies of the oil companies are wrong. There is not nearly enough price competition in the trade. But this does not mean that the Monopolies Commission is right in saying that the present structure of the trade should remain virtually as it is and that there should be no newcomers coming in with solus stations. Only with the bitter wind of competition, with people like Total coming in, shall we break the present pattern in the distribution of petrol in this country.
It may be that some Government action is needed here, but it must not be assumed that we will necessarily produce a more efficient distribution of petrol by keeping 42 companies with, basically, a static number of solus stations, the idea being that they will then have to battle for sales to the independents. It by no means follows from that pattern that the fundamental purpose of distribution, to get the petrol into the owner-driver's motor car at the lowest competitive price will be met. It will not bring about more price competition. If anything, it will reduce price competition.
The petrol companies have not a particularly good record in this respect. They always offer specious arguments about giving value in service and so on, but the average motorist has great difficulty in finding what the service is for which he is paying. We shall not make the trade any more competitive by saying that the share of the market the companies now have should become the law of the Medes and Persians so that they are less likely than before to lose it. This will neither alter pricing policy nor make for more competition.
What this country needs more than anything else is the cold wind of competition, not a reduction of it. The Monopolies Commission is a body of very wise


people, but they have not all the wisdom of the laws of the Medes and Persians in their minds. One is entitled to criticise a conclusion reached by the Monopolies Commission, and I believe that in this case, a very difficult case, the Commission has reached the wrong conclusion. It may have decided that something ought to be done by the Government to force more price competition in the sale of petrol, but no more petrol will be got more cheaply into the consumers' tanks by recommending that the present solus positions shall now become sacrosanct and that the newcomer will find it more difficult to make progress. This will limit competition, not increase it.
I make no apology for speaking as a layman on the subject of the distribution of petrol. Right hon. Gentlemen may say that what I have been saying makes that obvious, but I have the right to make my comments. What I am disturbed about—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will set my mind at rest about this—is that Total was encouraged to build a refinery in this country at a cost of £20 million. I do not accept that it necessarily was, but if it was, the Government have a responsibility. This is one of the troubles about the Government taking such a part in our affairs. They cannot encourage a company to build a refinery' at a cost of £20 million with a throughput of 180 million gallons and then impose a limit of 50 million gallons and make it very difficult for the company to sell the remainder.
If the Government have encouraged the firm to build the refinery, they have more than a minimal responsibility for the action now being taken. I do not own a share in Total or in connection with the distribution of petrol, but we have to be very careful not to give encouragement in this way and then take such action simply because a report is made by the Monopolies Commission which everyone assumes must mean asking for increasing competition even though the Order will reduce competition. The Order will not get petrol into the consumers' tanks any more cheaply and I view it with grave doubt and suspicion.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This is an unusual procedure for an Order. This is an Order made under Section 3 of the

Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, which Section enables the Board of Trade
for the purpose of remedying or preventing any mischiefs which in their opinion result or may be expected to result from the conditions or things which, according to the report of the Commission as laid before Parliament, operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest …
The Order is based not on a Report of the Monopolies Commission, but on the opinion of the Board of Trade on the facts disclosed by that Report.
We are, therefore, entitled to question that opinion. Whatever one may think about the Commission, right or wrong, this Order is not an Order carrying out some recommendations of the Commission. The Commission merely advises the President of the Board of Trade, who then decides whether to make an Order. If he chooses to make such an Order, that Order has to be laid before Parliament, and if it is not approved by resolution of each House within 28 days, beginning with that on which it is made, the Order ceases to have effect.
There is a further provision which needs to be considered because of the dates of this and the previous Order—that the 28 days do not run while the House is not sitting. So we have first an Order which was made on 19th July and laid before Parliament on 25th July and coming into operation on 6th August, 1966, and, working out the 28 days when Parliament was not sitting, that lapsed on 20th October. It was allowed to lapse, because in the course of that time a Petition was presented to another place and received such serious examination there that it was referred to a Select Committee.
This is the second occasion within 11 days on which this House has been called on to consider an Order which is subject to a Petition in another place. It is a most unsatisfactory procedure. I do not want to suggest in any way that we in this House should hold up our proceedings because something is happening in another place, but I say that we can benefit in this House if we await the result of those proceedings.
If this were a Bill, and it dealt with private interests, we have a procedure which must be observed in this House before we consider such a Bill. We allow those whose private interests are affected to petition the House, in fact


to petition either House in which the Bill is being considered, or has been presented. Indeed, if a Petition were presented against a Bill in another place, we should not dream of dealing with that Bill in this House while that Petition was pending.
We have no such Petition procedure when we are considering a Statutory Instrument, but they have that procedure in another place, and it has been adopted in the case of this Order, to the extent not only of the Petition being presented, but of the whole matter being referred to a Select Committee.
I am sure that had the President of the Board of Trade awaited the Report of that Select Committee in another place, we should have had the benefit of the views expressed there, and would have been able to have second thoughts not only on this Order, but on the Monopolies Commission's Report on which the Order is based.
My hon. Friends have shown that there is some disagreement, to say the least, about the Report of the Monopolies Commission. It has been shown clearly that there should be second thoughts on what has been recommended by that Commission to the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, what better second thoughts could we have before us than a Select Committee looking at this matter in detail now in another place for the benefit, after all, not of that other place alone, but for the benefit of Parliament? We are all part of it. There are two Houses of Parliament, and what is going on in the other one is of interest to us here, and we can benefit from their deliberations.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise on this occasion, even if it meant allowing the Order to lapse again and making another one, to have awaited the results of the deliberations in another place. This procedure is unfortunate, and I have not known it occur for many years, but in a matter of 11 days this is the second occasion on which it has occurred, and now that it has been shown what difficulties can arise, I should have liked to have established some sort of tradition that where a Petition is presented in another place against an Order, we in

this House wait with all decency for the Report of the Select Committee of another place.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I imagine that I can speak again only with the leave of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It is not necessary.

Mr. Jay: Then I shall speak all the same.
I think that it would not be proper for me to comment on the proceedings which are now going on in another place, but the real issue which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) raised was the merit of the substantial policy of this Order, and he was entitled to raise that, as were his hon. Friends to take different sides on it.
The only reason why I did not argue it at length was that on that issue this House had already given its decision on 6th August when it had all those essential issues before it, and when it had had the Report of the Monopolies Commission before it for many months. Nevertheless, I agree that this is a point on which there can be legitimate differences of opinion, as there were between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). I believe that this issue of policy, that is to say, whether we should achieve greater consumer benefit and greater competition by limiting the number of company-owned sites or by not limiting them, was one of the main issues on which the Monopolies Commission deliberated for approximately four years.

Dr. Bennett: I suggest that there may be a little confusion in the House about the differences between a company-owned site and a Solus site. It may not have been fully grasped that they were not one and the same thing.

Mr. Jay: That is quite correct. I was going to tell the hon. Member for Orms-kirk (Sir D. Glover) that I agree with him that the Monopolies Commission is not infallible; nor is the hon. Member; nor am I. However, the Commission did deliberate for four years, and gave a clear answer, and I have been constantly urged in this House that unless there is some strong reason to the contrary I


should carry out the recommendations of the Commission, or something very close to them.
In this case, as hon. Members know, the Board of Trade, after considering the matter for some time, liberalised—from Total's point of view—the limit which the Commission had advised. That was accepted by the 41 companies. It was also accepted by this House. When that issue has been considered by the Commission for all that time and has been approved by my Department and then—for what hon. Members opposite think it is worth—on consideration, by the House, a pretty strong case must have been made out for it.
The hon. Member's argument was that the effect of these limits would lead to diminished rather than increased competition. I do not think that he fully understands exactly how this proposal will work. All that the Order does in the matter of company-owned sites is to limit the additional number which one firm may acquire. It does not limit the amount of petrol or oil which it may sell. In the first place, Total would be in exactly the same position as any other company—and there are quite a number—which had reached this limit. But having reached this limit it is quite possible to sell through non-company-owned sites—the ordinary private sites, as the hon. Member called them—of which there are a large number and of which the Commission thought there should be an even greater number.
A company could increase its sales in that way and also—which the hon. Member did not seem to observe—through the existing company-owned sites. There is no limit on the amount of increased sales which the company can achieve that way. Thirdly, it is open to it to sell oil products not through roadside sites but direct to business and industrial consumers. In all these three ways it is possible for the company, even when it has reached this limit, to increase its sales.

Mr. Alison: I appreciate the point the right hon. Gentleman is making, but he should admit that the sales industrially

are perhaps somewhat limited, including sales of naphtha, following the discovery of natural gas. It was a little disingenuous of him to say that Total could increase its sales through non-company-owned sites just as existing companies can. Under this Order Total will not be allowed to do the one-for-one swap—giving up an existing station in return for one with a greater throughput, which is open to companies not subject to the Order.

Mr. Jay: That is due to the fact that Total did not accept the voluntary undertaking. It was forced upon us, not by our desire but by the attitude of Total. I do not suggest that there will be no limit, whether in respect of naphtha or natural gas. There is always some limit on sales in any business. It will, however, be possible for the company to increase its sales in all these three ways.
We are, therefore, emphatically not stopping the increase of sales. What we are doing is following the essential recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that it is desirable to limit the number of company-owned sites as a proportion of the total number of retail outlets. If we were to accept Total's arguments—they are not the same as those of the hon. Member, but there is a certain similarity—it would not be possible substantially to carry out the proposals of the Commission.
In my view, and that of the Commission and the House when we considered this matter, that would be detrimental to the consuming public. I am convinced that that is correct, but I am also certain that we were right to be scrupulously fair to Total and make sure that it would have the chance to put forward its Petition and have it properly considered in another place.
For all those reasons, I hope that the House will approve the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Solus Petrol (No. 2) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1314), dated 20th October 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th October, be approved.

EXPORT REBATES (B.I.X. LTD.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I should like to consider some of the problems and difficulties which face B.I.X., Ltd., of Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, and similar scientific testing firms. I will provide some information which I feel will be valuable to the Financial Secretary when he comes to consider not only the debate but some Questions which I have put down for his Ministry. T should like to outline the activities of this firm and some parallel ones.
This is essentially a non-destructive testing firm which carries out its work in this country and many other parts of the world. The same type of argument applies to other scientific testing firms, four of which in the United Kingdom are direct rivals of B.I.X., Ltd. This type of service is highly technical. The firm has teams of welding inspectors and N.D.T. technicians, using things like X-rays, gamma rays, and ultrasonic and magnetic particle inspection equipment. Obviously, the level of training required for this type of work is very high.
The projects of B.I.X., Ltd., either at the moment or very recently, include the B.P. wellhead on the North-East Yorkshire coast, in connection with the oil developments in the North Sea. It is also involved in the inspection of pipeline and oil storage tanks in the Persian Gulf at Abadan and Bandar-Mashur in Iran and at Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf. In these cases, it is working for American construction firms. It is also carrying out work on gas pipelines in the Swiss gas pipeline between Basle, Berne and Neuchatel for the Bechtel International Company.
From this brief introduction it will be apparent to the House that this type of company is involved in a great deal of export work. Indeed, it is very often working for American firms and other sources from which dollars are earned. For much of the work now being done on the North Sea bed, the sterling being

paid out to American firms is being partially recovered by the inspection work being carried out by B.I.X. Ltd.
It is worthy of note that since 1962 when the company received its first export contract, its turnover on the export side has grown from nil to about £150,000, the great majority of which is received in dollar drafts. I have with me a list of some of the firm's overseas contracts. In Switzerland it has a contract giving an annual return of £40,000 from Swiss contractors. In connection with the North Sea gas project, it has a return of £25,000 from American contractors. In Iran, from American contractors, its contract is worth about £7,500. In Nigeria, from American contractors, the contract is worth about £15,000. In the Persian Gulf, from American contractors, the contract is worth about £14,000 and from overseas activities connected with aircraft, its contract is worth £5,000.
Clearly, all along the line this firm is an exporter. Moreover, for some years it has had a distinct technical lead, something unusual for British firms these days. Part of Britain's difficulty has been that while we gained a lead in many spheres at the time of the Industrial Revolution, other countries have been developing newer techniques and have taken a scientific and technical lead over us. In this case, probably because American pipelines on a large scale preceded developments in this country, we have had a technical lead. However, the firm is finding that it is facing increasing competition from Germany, Holland and France.
I am not suggesting tonight that we should open wide the door for export rebates in the invisible sphere generally. I appreciate that to do so would take into account the mighty insurance exporters and so on. But this firm is exporting in a tangible way because of the trucks and vehicles it uses for its export work, and this aspect is valued at about £25,000 a year.
During work on the Kharg Island project, the company was hiring equipment to American firms, and that brought in £5,000 a year, all in dollars. This is something tangible to which, I suggest, a system of export rebates could apply. Indeed, the company is at present competing for a job in Saudi Arabia which


might involve about £250,000 a year for the exportation of equipment and vehicles.
Despite the export of equipment in this way, the company is not receiving an export rebate and, to add to its burdens, it must now pay Selective Employment Tax. As I pointed out, the training of operators for this work takes a considerable time because of the skill that is needed. It is estimated that it costs the firm about £500 to train an individual employee and hold him between particular jobs. In this year alone the firm calculates that Selective Employment Tax will cost it about £3,640, and it is thought that by 1967 this will amount to £5,000. In fact, it is suggested that one of the firm's rivals is being forced by the additional burden of this tax to look overseas for offices from which it can operate.
I will refer the Financial Secretary to a Question in the House on Tuesday. 12th July which asked whether special arrangements are made for bigger exporters which are affected by this tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): What is the column number?

Mr. Roberts: I have not the column number. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied,
I doubt whether there would be such firm's."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1199.]
I submit that B.I.X. Ltd. which next year hopes to export 75 per cent. of its turnover, compared with 60 per cent. this year, is this type of firm.
One feature of the company is the phenomenal growth rate. I have some figures. The employment figures rose as follows: 1963, 14; 1964, 26; 1965, 60; and 1966, 59. It would have been higher this year, except that for the first time the firm has been forced to put off one or two employees because of the burden of this tax.
The turnover figures are even more phenomenal. In the year ending April, 1961, the turnover was about £7,900. By 1963 it was about £23,000; by 1965, £95,000; in 1966, £165,000; and it is estimated that in the year ending April, 1967, it will be £250,000. It would be difficult to find a British firm which had

this phenomenal rate of growth over this period. One may find quadration or cubic growth over a short period but not sustained over so long a time.
I have only a few minutes left and in them I wish to stress one or two points. First of all, this firm contributes to technical advance. I have provided the Financial Secretary with some examples of the very highly advanced work which the firm is carrying out. Taking one example only, the firm is considering methods which will revolutionise radiography on land pipelines. This could be more and more important with the proposed extension of land pipelines to carry oil and natural gas.
Britain has held its position in the world by providing always a high level of specialised technical skill. This type of firm is playing its full part in keeping us ahead in this technical skill. It would be a tragedy if such an enterprise were to be choked by the burden of taxation. I submit that this type of firm is the type which not only the people of Leighton Buzzard but also B.I.X. and the economy of Britain truly need.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I have no wish to cut into the time which the Financial Secretary has to reply to this important debate. I wish to congratulate my Parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) on presenting in such depth a case which I think is of the greatest importance. He has put considerable research in it. I cannot believe that the Financial Secretary will treat it in any sense lightly. Some of the management live in my constituency. I do not think I can expand or improve on the case put by the hon. Member. The thing which strikes one about B.I.X. and other firms of this kind is the great skill involved and exports of 75 per cent. are something of which any firm can be proud. It is astonishing that such a firm should be classed as a service and penalised in this way vis-à-vis its competitors abroad.
In the Economist last week there was a long article on Professor Kaldor's theories on this extraordinary tax. I am not sure yet that I understand it but I go further than the hon. Gentleman did in condemning it. I read the article once or


twice. If this scrambled egg of an intellectual approach to fiscal reform makes sense to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I hope that he understands it better than I do. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there is room for anomalies—that there must be room for them. Certainly the case of this firm is an extraordinary anomaly. If he cannot assure us tonight that there will be some real reform of this iniquitous tax, I hope that at least he will look into the case of firms like B.I.X., which are suffering quite unduly, with consequences to the economy as well.

11.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): In contrast with the intemperate and ignorant remarks we have just heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) presented his case with persuasion and moderation. He told in a way which I am sure interested all of us of the remarkable achievements and record of B.I.X. Ltd., which is in the forefront in its own field of technical work and which has an astonishing record both of growth rate and export achievement.
The question he raises is whether something cannot be done to assist it in its effort through the machinery of the export rebate scheme. The scheme is one, and by no means the only one, of the Government's contributions to helping exports. The last Government examined it and rejected it. Now the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, who supported that Government, tells us that we are penalising exporters. When we introduce a scheme to the limit that we are able, he says we penalise people who fall within it. The limits of the scheme are dictated by what is administratively feasible and also by our international trade obligations.

Mr. Hastings: Mr. Hastingsrose——

Mr. MacDermot: No. I will not give way. I did not attempt to stop the hon. Gentleman intervening in the debate and I propose now to answer it.
The aim of the scheme was to refund without introducing any element of subsidy certain indirect taxes, mainly petrol and oil duties and vehicle licence duty,

which enter into the cost of exports. In order that the scheme could be workable it had to satisfy all these requirements. To do so we had to confine it to exports of goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom. This was both necessary to comply with these international agreements and to make it administratively feasible.
I will illustrate the administrative aspect. There are two serious practical difficulties, apart from anything else, in trying to apply a rebate scheme like this to service industries. The first is that there is no available statistical information about the incidence of indirect taxes which is needed in order to calculate the rates of rebate and to ensure that they do not include a subsidy element. That is not readily available for the export service sector of the economy. Secondly, even if these difficulties could be overcome, the appropriate rates would be extremely low for many service industries where a large part of the work is done and which consists of expert labour and knowledge and only a small proportion of which represents the burden of relevant indirect taxes. Thirdly, the whole machinery of the Customs and Excise organisation which we have in this country would be quite inadequate to supervise and administer a rebate scheme for invisible exports.
These are the general reasons why we had to confine the scheme to goods and there is no question of our penalising service industries which do not qualify for it. It is a misfortune for them that they are unable to do so, but they are not being penalised in comparison with their foreign competitors. My hon. Friend makes the point that this particular firm, in the course of providing what is primarily a service, exports a certain amount of goods and equipment, and he says that it is receiving no export rebate whatever for that equipment.
I am not sure why that is, and if he will supply me with further information about it I will be very glad to look into it, because there are certain provisions in the Act whereby export rebate can be claimed in respect of plant and equipment which is sent overseas, whether it is sent on hire—provided the hire period is not less than a year—or whether it is permanently exported for use in the applicant's own business abroad.
I do not know, but it may be that this firm will qualify, or might be able to qualify, for some export rebate. But I suspect that the point my hon. Friend has in mind is to seek to claim rebate for indirect taxes going beyond those which went into the production of these particular goods, and to seek to claim rebate in respect of other indirect taxes which may have been paid by the firm. This, I am afraid, would be unacceptable from our point of view. It would not be acceptable internationally because, under the international agreements which allow a rebate scheme of this kind, one must relate the rebate to the cost of the indirect taxes which have been borne in relation to the goods themselves.
I am informed that there is no record of an actual application having been made by this company for rebate. I believe it did make a general inquiry of the local officer and was informed, as is the fact, that generally speaking a rebate is not payable in respect of exported services. But if the company cares, either through my hon. Friend or directly through the local officer, to let us have more specific information about plant and equipment which it sends abroad, I will gladly have the matter investigated to see whether it can in fact qualify for some element of export rebate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.